Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 May 2024

Vol. 1053 No. 3

Supports for Survivors of Residential Institutional Abuse Bill 2024: Second Stage (Resumed)

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Deputy Michael Collins

With the Chair's indulgence, I welcome my sister Kay Lynch from Bantry and Geraldine O'Donovan from Ovens to the Gallery today.

We are here to shed light on a distressing reality that many survivors of institutional abuse are currently grappling with. These individuals who have already endured so much are now facing long waits, often exceeding a year, to access crucial counselling services. This situation has been exacerbated by the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic leading to a significant regression in their mental health. Some steps have been taken to address this issue by the introduction of the Supports for Survivors of Residential Institutional Abuse Bill.

While this Bill is a step in the right direction, it falls short of what is truly needed. It promises care and medical coverage but, in reality, these promises often translate into a long waiting list. This is as much a reflection of the dysfunction within our health service as it is a failing of the Bill itself. The Bill outlines the measures in areas including health, advocacy and education but these supports will only be meaningful if they are readily available. While the Bill has been generally well received, concerns have been raised about certain provisions within it. There have also been calls for additional supports in the areas of housing and health. One in Four, a charity that provides psychotherapy and advocacy support to men and women who have experienced childhood sexual abuse, has highlighted that while the provision of a free counselling service is welcome, many organisations are struggling to meet the demand for services. Maeve Lewis, CEO of the charity, stated by way of example that at One in Four, the waiting list for psychotherapy is more than one year and the same is true for the network of rape crisis centres and for the national counselling service. Survivors of institutional abuse deserve to have timely access to well-trained, experienced trauma psychotherapists and counsellors and no provision has been made for this in the Bill.

In light of these challenges, it is clear the Bill should be accompanied by a dedicated support agency to help survivors to access information about their entitlements under the Bill. This is crucial as some of the survivors may be suffering from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder and may lack the confidence to assertively claim their entitlements. Let us remember that these survivors have already endured so much. It is our duty to ensure they have the support they need to heal and move forward.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

I acknowledge the presence of the Minister of State and thank him. I will say about this very important issue that every person goes through life and some people have good luck and good fortune and more people do not. Unfortunately, the people who found themselves in these institutions were very important human beings but were subjected to degrading practices. They were degraded and upset. They were treated as if they were not human beings. I acknowledge this Government and other Governments for trying to put right a wrong that was certainly not the doing of any government in our modern times. What we are trying to do now is play catch-up. We are trying to create a situation of redress for those very important people. Whether it is through supports, be they psychological, physical or financial, we have to try to ensure as politicians that we do our best by those people. Through my political work I have come across what I would call survivors of institutional abuse and I have listened to them, the same as the Minister of State and everybody in this House has. I have listened to their stories and to be honest it would break your heart because you ask how any human being - be it a man, woman, religious or non-religious person - could be so awful to another person. It is very hard to understand it. I know that if I were to live forever, I would never understand it.

With the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach's indulgence, I wish to thank an individual. Ms Vera O'Leary has worked in the Kerry rape crisis centre for many years, and I know first-hand from dealing with constituents how helpful and kind that lady and her staff have been in supporting victims of rape and other types of abuse and dealing with people at their most vulnerable time. I have had the privilege of visiting the Kerry Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre.

It was explained to me how it manages, funds and provides a service and takes care of people who present to them. Vera has given a lifetime to that work and I know she is coming to retirement. I wish to acknowledge that work, thank her for it and say that she had a positive impact on many people's lives. She took them through very bad, long and hard days and ordeals. It is nice to acknowledge a person and say, "Thank you very much", and that his or her life's work made a difference.

People are critical of the Bill. We can all be critical of a Bill and say that this or that does not go far enough and we are missing this or that. That we are debating this and a Bill is being enacted is a step in the right direction. We always have to try to do more and be conscious that we must never allow a situation like this to happen again.

I often think about children in the context of technology like a mobile phone. People are in the legal system because they have looked at pornography and so on. You cannot have abuse or pornography of children unless there are victims. To this day, I worry whether we as politicians, who enforce the law of the land, and those involved in different State agencies are doing enough to try to protect vulnerable people, whether it is those caught up with alcohol or drug abuse, or children.

We hear of awful cases where parents have subjected their children to abuse for profit. We read about such cases in local newspapers, where mums and dads have abused their children. Anyone would give their life to protect their own or somebody else's child. If we thought something horrible or untoward was going on, we would put ourselves in the way to try to protect a vulnerable person.

We know about historical institutional abuse. I worry whether we are doing enough to protect the children of today from the scourge that is modern technology. When I refer to a scourge, technology is a great thing when it is used properly but it is an awful thing when people can look at images of children. We must remember that when people look at such images, it is as if they are perpetrating the crime on a child because they are watching what is happening and there is a victim. We always have to make sure that we do enough for such people. I am not here to criticise the Government or say there is anything wrong in the Bill. Rather, I am thanking all of the politicians, those in government and in opposition, for trying to put right a horrible wrong.

With regard to religion, of course there were people who were involved in religious orders who engaged in abuse and that was horrible, awful and wrong. There are people who might not like religion, or priests or nuns, for one reason or another, which is their own business. During a debate like this, we have to say that the vast majority of people involved in religious orders have given up their lives for something they believe in, and that is a thing called God. They are not bad people. They never did anything wrong. They, like you and me, would do anything to protect a child or other person and they would not engage in any of this. They were tarred with the same brush and there are people who would like to say they are all the same. They are not all the same. People went on foreign missions and gave up their lives for that work. Parish priests and nuns in local convents are, unfortunately, getting to be a rare group of people. The number of masses has been cut and we are relying more and more on lay people to try to fill in with religious duties because not enough people are going into the priesthood or entering convents. I thank those respectable people. We all knew them when we were altar boys and were delighted to be participating in church duties. We thought it was an honour, and it was. We then heard about bad things happening in other places but they did not happen everywhere. I certainly would not ever want to see respectable priests and religious people being tarnished, painted or made out to be something they are not.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

This is something the Minister has inherited. It is before his time but it is within the remit of the whole House to rectify wrongdoing. People were put into institutions and used as free labour under terrible conditions. Their families were taken from them and they were dispersed with no records, and in cases where there were records they were hidden.

I have met many survivors of mother and baby homes. John, a good friend of mine, has a daughter who recently got planning permission - it took two years to get it and go through all of the loops. He was happy that his family was around him and did not have to move away. All that man wanted was to make sure his family were close. The same man did not know until a couple of years ago that his sister was living within ten miles of him. He passed her in the street and did not know it was his sister.

Another woman I know is Mary. When it was announced that there would be a redress scheme, I called to her with a box of chocolates and a bouquet of flowers. I wanted to tell her somebody was listening to her and to give her something to give her an uplift. She asked me what it was for because she did not want to show emotion. She has always asked why she cannot show emotion. It was due to the mother and baby homes. She got married and had children but has always had a problem with interacting with people. She wondered what was wrong. People who have been in mother and baby homes have come out of them scarred.

Resources need to be provided to help them from a mental health, family, work ethic and housing point of view. Everything should be done to make sure people are not suffering any more. There should be no obstacles put in the way of those seeking paperwork to track their children. As a father of four, I could not bear not to know where one of them was. I cannot bear to see anyone who has gone through this system being left with anguish and scars. Those of us in this House should do everything in our power collectively to make sure no one is left behind.

I spoke to a survivor recently who asked me whether they were waiting for them to die before giving them what was promised. Previous Governments have promised different things for decades, such as infrastructure, and have never delivered. If we deliver one thing for these people, it must be that we do not make another false promise.

Let us get rid of the red tape and look after the people. We need to allow them to enjoy the years they have and leave something to the families they have around them now and the families they do not know they have. We need to let them connect.

Can you imagine the anguish of a dying loved one whose last wish is to meet his or her family but who cannot contact them or does not know where they are? I will support everything that will help everybody obtain closure but the Government needs to ensure that no more obstacles are put in their way.

In each of the two recent referendums, 70% of the population voted "No” to proposals regarding the removal of references to the role of the mother and women in the home. Can you imagine that the Government wanted to remove the references from the Constitution? As nobody would be here without their mother or a woman, we need to acknowledge the people who were in the mother and baby homes. We need to ensure they are protected and that their families are helped in every way possible to know what happened in the first place. Consider all the entitlements, including pensions, that the survivors should be given based on their years in the mother and baby homes. Considering the labour they did for free, they should be reimbursed. If you work in this country, you pay your taxes and then you can get reimbursed where applicable. We have to reimburse the people in question. They provided a service, even in the conditions in which they were living, and now need to be paid for what they did. We need to recognise and protect them and give them every legal assistance to help them to obtain closure.

Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor

There are no precise, up-to-date data on the number of survivors of abuse in residential institutions who are still alive today but I can tell you they are not getting any younger. Therefore, we all need to work together to have this Bill enacted quickly. This is of the utmost importance.

As of 31 December 2015, the Residential Institutions Redress Board had made awards of compensation to 15,579 survivors. These survivors, along with those who obtained a similar court award or settlement, would be eligible to access support provided for under this Bill. That is really welcome and important because not enough has been done.

On supporting further and higher education through grants for survivors ranging from €500 to €2,000, it is important to realise that according to the Ryan report, residents of the schools were provided with inadequate food and clothing, cold accommodation, poor hygiene facilities, and poor standards of education and physical care. What they had was industrial training that served the needs of the institutions, not children. Therefore, school is not a place that many survivors would intentionally revisit. While some survivors may avail of the support, many are older and have health issues. Maybe we could now consider some kind of pension plan for them and ensure full access to the medical card system.

The Magdalen laundry survivors were given a full pension that recognised the work they performed during their incarceration, as well as an enhanced medical card. They have held these for over ten years now, whereas those who went to an industrial school have had no such privilege, even though they also worked as children.

I still have issues with doctors charging medical card patients for blood tests when they should not. I would not like to see this happening to survivors. Shameful as it is, we have to accept that some survivors are living in poverty and may have mental health problems. Some are homeless and socially isolated. The package of support containing the enhanced medical card gives survivors access to GP services, medicines, home nursing, home help, dental, ear and eye services, counselling, chiropody, podiatry and physiotherapy.

My main question concerns whether we have staff to provide the relevant services. While there is a huge recruitment problem in the HSE given the demand, we must ensure the services exist for the survivors. It is of the utmost importance to get this legislation through the Houses as quickly as possible but we need to ensure the services are available.

Recently, a concerned constituent of mine who used the chiropodist clinic at Shamrock Plaza Primary Care Centre told me that, as far as they know, no one has been appointed to run the clinic. They fear it might close. This is speculation but I might check it out. It does not inspire confidence if the services are not kept open. We need to make sure survivors get all the care they deserve.

Some survivors tell me their medical cards might be different from those of others. I refer to the enhanced medical card. I am trying to get information on this because, as the Minister of State knows, the average age of survivors is now 69 and their numbers have dwindled. They have the general medical card in most cases. I am trying to find out the exact position on the enhanced medical card. One lady said to me that she fears she would stick out like a sore thumb when trying to access anything medical as it would be obvious that only people who had been in institutions or mother and baby homes would carry the enhanced card. We have to be very mindful about this. While the enhanced card is welcome, we do not want people to feel they might stand out. I am going to try to get more information on this.

I also want to ask about accessing housing supports and the prioritisation of survivors, particularly regarding grants for roofs, windows and doors, bathroom adaptation and bedrooms. We need to move quicker on this. This is another major issue we have not addressed well. We should have made these issues a priority.

Since the Birth Information and Tracing Act came into effect in October 2022, Tusla has received over 7,200 applications for birth and early life information. It has provided information for around 5,400 applicants, yet I receive complaints that people are waiting for up to 12 months to gain access to their records. Again, this needs to be addressed urgently. There have been 5,700 applications for Tusla tracing services to find relatives and only 1,600 have been allocated to a social worker. I am aware that we have a social worker recruitment and retention crisis but we need to do something about this because survivors have waited long enough. Tusla stated when the legislation was introduced that it did not plan appropriately or predict the volume and demand that would arise in such a short timeframe. We are hiring additional staff to deal with the backlog of cases. I realise the Minister of State is working across the board but the survivors and I need to know that the Government is acting and giving the best supports and best care, which survivors should be getting.

I spoke to a survivor recently. I have been working with the survivors. We all have heard stories and have to be very mindful but survivors are now telling me they are holding a protest on 11 May on Sean MacDermott Street concerning industrial school survivors not having had dialogue on the future housing of their history. I can say only this: survivors have to be listened to and we have to have communication and information. This is the only way to get this Bill through as quickly as possible. The Government needs to have it agreed by all parties. Survivors are getting older and we need to deliver for them and their families. We need to get this done as soon as possible.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on the Supports for Survivors of Residential Institutional Abuse Bill 2024. The State has repeatedly let down survivors of residential institutional abuse and this legislation is yet another example.

It is interesting that this legislation is being put forward by the Department of Education. We had the Department of children previously.

It shows that this is a whole-of-government approach to actually perpetrating the wrongs that have gone on and compounding them rather than sorting them out and dealing with them. That is sad. It is sad that the State has facilitated this and forced people to live through what they went through in the mother and baby homes and residential institutions, with the abuse that happened there. The State knew about it. The records of this House show that the State knew about it, going back to the 1930s. It was discussed in this House. It was not that the State did not know. The State facilitated it and passed it along to the church to allow it to carry it out because it was easy. The State said it did not have to deal with it but could pass it on to the church to look after. Then the State wrung its hands about something happening when it was actually found out.

The problem is that, no matter what, we keep perpetrating this abuse on people. That is sad. It can be seen from the brilliant resource the Library and Research Service has provided for this Bill, the digest in which it analyses what is in it, what is not in it and how it continues with the abuse. That is wrong. Unfortunately, we will probably have to come back again to finish this process off. The Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Act 2023 was disgraceful and included cruel exclusions, such as the well-known minimum 180-day residency requirement to access payments and medical cards under the scheme. It was a perpetuation of past harms and is a retraumatisation for survivors. This legislation is sadly not much better.

The mother and baby institutions payment scheme did not provide additional financial redress for those who experienced racial abuse, forced family separation and medical experimentation. It did not give an opportunity for formal recognition of survivor experiences. It did not oblige religious orders and those involved in running the mother and baby homes to contribute financially to payments for survivors. In summary, it did not listen to survivors. I think that is key to all this process. There has been no listening to survivors. Survivors have been able to talk but the State has not taken on board anything that survivors have said about it. That is what is wrong across the board.

We have a devastating history in this country of not listening to survivors of abuse or wrongdoing. We have seen examples of this time and again. This Government has not learned from our mistakes and continues to ignore survivors of abuse in Irish legislation, despite plenty of consultation with them. It is extremely cruel to force survivors to go through this consultation, to relive their past traumas, to assess what is needed in their lives and to advise what will assist them in trying to move on and live their lives, only for these requests to be completely ignored. The digest quotes the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights Agency, which stated:

The victim is no longer pleading for help on the basis of their vulnerability, pressing needs and deservingness but demanding that the state should take seriously what it owes to the individuals living on its territory and their human rights. The state is no longer in the comfortable and patronising position of a more or less generous Good Samaritan, but a duty-bearer indebted to the individuals living under its jurisdiction as rights-holders.

We have a duty and we are ignoring it completely. It is a disgraceful way to treat anyone, never mind those who have already been forced to go through so much. Survivors are still forced to endure many challenges today. A 2015 report commissioned by Caranua found that "the current living conditions of survivors are highly disadvantaged when compared with the population as a whole". The 2019 consultation with survivors report outlined that a significant number of survivors are living in poverty and may have mental health problems and that some are socially isolated and homeless. This is absolutely disgraceful and should be a source of immense shame for this Government and indeed for all citizens and Members of this House. I am horrified at the way survivors have been treated. It is so deeply unjust that they are forced to endure so much with so little support.

Human rights bodies, including the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, have outlined fundamental human rights principles that redress schemes should adhere to and this Government has continuously failed to adhere to these principles. The commission is funded by the Government to advise on what is happening and it has been ignored. It can be argued that the Government has failed to adhere to all five of the principles, namely, promptness, participation, adequacy and effectiveness, accessibility, non-discrimination and the principle of do no harm. However, it particularly failed to adhere to three of them. The principle of participation requires that victims should be meaningfully involved in the development of schemes, yet it has been made clear by many survivors that they were not satisfied with the mother and baby institutions payment scheme.

The principles also state that particular groups of victims should not be excluded in any way. Despite this, the Government has continued to exclude victims. There are many victims who were excluded in last year's legislation and there are many excluded in the legislation we are discussing today. The principles outline that the redress mechanisms should avoid the retraumatisation of victims and their families and ensure that they are treated with dignity and humanity, but unfortunately the Government has failed at ensuring this as well.

The Supports for Survivors of Residential Institutional Abuse Bill is extremely disappointing legislation, although sadly, at this stage, this is not surprising. The legislation leaves out so much and leaves so many behind. It fails to give survivors access to an enhanced HAA medical card, which has been a priority concern for survivors for a long time. Many survivors have suffered many health issues as a result of the abuse and trauma of institutionalisation. The very least that could be afforded to them is a medical card to address any medical issue they may experience. Rather than give the HAA medical card to them, the Department goes through a convoluted process for how it will assess needs at a later stage and maybe give enhanced medical benefits by going through that whole assessment. The digest states that section 4(2):

permits the Minister for Education and the HSE to disclose to each other, and process, certain personal data, where necessary and proportionate, for the purpose of providing the health services and supports comprising the enhanced medical card. Section 2 of the Bill clarifies that the phrases "personal data", "special categories of personal data", and "processing", in relation to personal data, have the same meanings in the Bill as they have in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

It also states that section 2 also clarifies that references in the Bill to "suitable and specific measures" mean measures safeguarding everything. It continues, "As discussed below, section 19(2) permits the Minister for Education to prescribe by regulations suitable and specific measures for the processing of personal data". It is all to give additional cards, when the Government could give permission for the HAA card to be granted to those people right from the very start. It would cut out that whole process. The reality is that that process will not happen. That is the thing about it. People will not get the benefit from it. We know that will happen in this process.

There should be no question of survivors’ entitlement to a contributory pension to recognise all the unpaid work they did in residential institutions and to give them the security to live out the rest of their lives without worry or financial stress. The fact that this has not been addressed in the Bill or previous legislation is outrageous. Survivors worked for years in residential institutions without payment and this needs to be acknowledged and compensated. Not only this, but survivors should be entitled to it anyway in recognition of the long-term consequences of working in such institutions and the effect that this has had on their career prospects, as well as the physical and mental effects that working in such an institution would have.

The Department has said that the purpose of this Bill is to provide health and education supports for survivors of residential abuse, but it should be said that the purpose of the Bill is to provide health and education supports to some survivors of residential abuse. This legislation follows in the footsteps of previous legislation by excluding certain survivors. That is an absolute disgrace. Survivors have repeatedly highlighted the importance of equal supports and services for all survivors, including those who did not receive an award from the residential institutions redress board or a similar court award or settlement. The legislation only addresses those who received an award of redress from the residential institutions board, which stopped receiving applications in 2011, and the scheme was subsequently closed. Survivors looking to apply for redress in the last 13 years have not been able to do so and now they are being denied the opportunity to receive health and education supports too.

The Government's insistence on continuously excluding survivors from schemes is barbaric and it is a choice. It has been explicitly asked by survivor groups not to do this and it has been advised by human rights bodies to ensure that redress adheres to the principles of accessibility, equality and non-discrimination in its design and implementation, and should not exclude or marginalise any particular group of victims. The Government is choosing to do this and I cannot understand why. Ensuring that all survivors have access to health and education supports would not cost the State a considerable amount. The cost of exclusion is much higher. Reading through the Bill, it talks about how it will support people to access SUSI grants. These are people in their 60s and 70s. How many of them will go on to do higher education at this stage? Very few. There is nothing that provides for their families, who have been at a disadvantage too over their lifetime, but nothing in this Bill provides for the families. The Bill expressly does not provide for them, even though the survivor group had asked for that too.

That is an ongoing problem. The Government is choosing to do this and I cannot understand why. Ensuring that all survivors have access to health and education supports would not cost the State a considerable amount. The cost of exclusion is much higher.

In addition, the €3,000 once-off payment for former residents living overseas is wholly insufficient, especially given that almost 40% of survivors are living abroad. There is also the question of how that could affect their entitlements should they, for example, be subject to a possible means test in the UK. From what I can see, the Department is only starting to look at that now and to talk to these survivors. Surely that could have been addressed as part of the process and provisions could have been included to provide services for people rather than providing a cash payment, so that it might not impact on a means test. The Department's response that it is a matter for the UK system is disingenuous.

Survivors should be in the position to refuse re-institutionalisation in their older age given the past trauma of institutionalisation. Section 4 includes some home nursing and home support services, but these services do not go far enough and do not provide the financial support to ensure survivors and their families are not forced to consider re-institutionalisation at an older age. The thought that they might go into another institution must be very traumatic for survivors. Even though institutions have changed and the system might be slightly different, the trauma and effects they have lived through will impact on survivors.

Overall, the legislation compounds the problems and does not deal with the situation. It has ignored survivors and does not listen to them. That is a problem. If it was evident that the Minister had listened to survivors, the Bill would have been a lot better, even if it provided a lot less, and people could have supported it.

Deputy Martin Browne

What we must bear in mind when discussing this Bill is whether its provisions reflect the needs of survivors of institutional abuse. They are the ones whose lives were changed due to the conditions and treatment to which they were subject. We cannot forget that their lives have also been shaped by the disregard shown to them in the decades subsequent to their confinement in places like Sean Ross Abbey in Roscrea. Those decades involved further disregard and the withholding of personal information they would have taken for granted if their lives had not been put on another course that was littered with obstacles to the truth. The challenges of dealing with the lifelong consequences of their treatment at a tier below other people must be recognised here. The conditions pregnant women were subjected to in Sean Ross Abbey is just one case in point. For these reasons, we must focus on whether the provisions of this Bill address the needs of survivors. That includes equality of access. The committee recommended that the legislation ensure all survivors of the residential institutions have equal access, yet this is being ignored through the exclusion of those who did not apply for redress.

Then there is the issue of the enhanced medical card. Survivors say that the difference between this card and the regular medical card entitlements is minimal. Will the Minister revisit this with a view to providing all survivors with a Health (Amendment) Act, HAA, card? I know of one woman – Joan is her name – who needs an operation on both knees. She also needs hearing aids and both of her eyes have cataracts. She is a survivor and has been promised an enhanced medical card but she has received nothing to date.

There are also the survivors living abroad who may find themselves at a disadvantage because of where life took them. I am sure the Minister is aware that access to health services in other jurisdictions is different from what it is here. As such, the one-off €3,000 grant is insufficient, is likely to fall foul of exchange rates and must be index-linked to the cost of living. This point was also raised in the committee. Does the Minister intend to address this or will survivors once again have to campaign on this matter when they find themselves going without? In addition, has the Department engaged with the Department for Work and Pensions in the UK about addressing any issue that may arise for those in the UK in respect of a disregard of this payment for those in receipt of a state benefit? These are all issues that must be ironed out ahead of implementation to avoid the need for survivors again having to fight for their rightful entitlements.

The Bill in its current form is overly restrictive and creates new obstacles for survivors. This must stop. The Minister can play her part by revisiting those aspects of the Bill that have been brought to her attention. Apologies and words are not enough any more. It is the measures that reinforce those sentiments that are of primary importance.

Deputy Mark Ward

I wish to share time with Deputies Ó Laoghaire and Ó Murchú.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Mattie McGrath)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Mark Ward

I was a member of the Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth when I heard at first hand the heartbreaking testimonies of those affected by the mother and baby homes. The last time I spoke on this issue, I read testimonies that survivors made to the commission of investigation. I will read again some of these testimonies because it is important to hear these women's voices.

One woman spoke about the conditions her mother endured while giving birth. She stated her mother "was tied to the bed and when she couldn't push, one of the nuns sat on her chest to make her."

On the immoral and evil practice of forced adoption, one person stated her son "was wrenched from my breast by one of the nuns whilst I was feeding him and taken away for adoption. At no time did I give my consent to my son's adoption."

Another mother spoke about the death of her child: "I do not even know whether he was buried in a coffin... There was never even a kind or sympathetic word spoken to me."

The psychological impact on mothers has been enormous. The Government thinks it has gone far enough to rectify the wrongs of the past, but the State can never go far enough to right the wrongs that were inflicted on survivors of residential abuse.

We had a previous Bill that discounted anyone - adult or child - who spent six months or less in a mother and baby home. This arbitrary decision not only did not acknowledge the lifelong impacts of institutional residential abuse, it also failed to validate those survivors who spent less than six months in a mother and baby home.

The Bill before us legislates for the provision of supports to survivors of residential institutional abuse, the dissolution of the statutory body, Caranua, and the transfer of certain functions to the Minister for Education. The legislation should ensure that all survivors of the residential institutions covered have equal access to all supports outlined in the Bill, irrespective of whether they have already received an award or settlement from Caranua or a similar court award or settlement.

The Department of Education representative at the committee stated the Department "did not envisage an eligibility process or application process for people who did not apply under the redress scheme." However, a representative of the Christine Buckley Centre for Education and Support argued that "we have to be mindful not to exclude people who did not apply for redress." The centre "discovered after the redress closing date that a lot of survivors had thought the redress was just to do with sexual abuse and not emotional or physical abuse". I ask the Minister to take this into consideration as this Bill progresses through the Oireachtas.

Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire

Before I got up to speak, I was thinking that in this House we have got into a habit of making very sincere and profound apologies. Very often, the quality of the apology is very good, and I do not wish in any way to take away from some of the apologies that have been made recently, which were sincere and well articulated, but what we are not always so good at is the follow-through. That has been the case, not just for the survivors of residential institutions, who are at issue in the legislation before the House, but what was effectively a regime of residential institutions which were connected in lots of ways. The Magdalen laundries, residential schools, county homes and the mother and baby homes were all part of the same superstructure. There was a whole philosophy of putting people in residential institutions, often in ways that were a long way less than voluntary, and imposing significant hardship on them. Typically, these were people from the margins of society. In many instances, their experiences and what they endured pushed them even further to the margins of society. An awful lot of the people who went through the industrial schools and residential institutions were profoundly scarred by what they experienced and the hardship and trauma they suffered. Many of them have had very difficult lives since then. In spite of all its flaws, that is the reason Caranua was set up.

The reason these issues come into this House is that there is a general acceptance that the State was responsible and that it had a role to play, and should have played a greater role, in preventing the abuses that happened and should not have turned a blind eye. It was responsible for ensuring that the harm which came about did not happen.

We should do much better than this legislation. A number of issues have been flagged to me by survivors. I have been in contact in the past with people who were previously part of the process and there was a frustration on the part of the consultative group that the communication after the Covid-19 pandemic was not what it could have been. There were a few meetings before the pandemic but the first contact thereafter was when survivors were informed of what was happening next rather than their being in a position to feed into it. There is frustration and disappointment that a number of supports are not being provided. The pension is one such issue. It is important that medical card provision is enhanced. Access to information, the records of survivors, is important. I also note the issues in respect of Britain. Many people have raised the issue of the means testing of payments by the Department of Work and Pensions in Britain and the North, and the implications for people living in the North or in Britain who receive redress.

The legislation should ensure that all survivors of residential institutions covered by the Bill have equal access to all the supports outlined, irrespective of whether they have already received an award or settlement from the Residential Institutions Redress Board.

We will try to table amendments but obviously that will be challenging because they will incur charges on the Exchequer. Tabling amendments to legislation such as this is not always easy. While I am sure we will attempt to do so, I ask the Minister of State and his officials to try to consider the areas in which the provision can be expanded to ensure that the injustices these people and their families face are rectified better than they are in this legislation and to the best effect possible.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

There will be much agreement about the State's dreadful history of institutional abuse. As my colleagues and many others have said, an enormous number of people were put into institutions against their will. Those institutions include mother and baby homes, institutional schools and all those places where this State has a dark history and where people were very badly treated. We all know the history of how badly this State has treated women. We welcome all the moves that are being made to rectify the situation as much as it can be rectified. It is possibly a matter of mitigating and looking after the needs that people have, particularly where health is involved. We are talking about people who have been through huge pain.

I would like to think the Government will work alongside the Opposition if we put forward amendments. There are obviously issues because there will be a financial aspect to some of the amendments, which creates a difficulty for us. I would like to think we will find a solution by whatever means.

Many have spoken about the fact that this scheme is limited to 139 institutions, which means a number have been excluded. That is not something we need to address. Whether we are talking about the enhanced medical card, those who are abroad or all those people who are now falling between stools, we must do our absolute best to deal with the situation. I agree with what many others have said. We have all spoken about people's particular narratives and history, the shameful way they were treated and how brutal life was in some of these institutions. That is very worthwhile because sometimes we can forget what we are talking about on an individual basis. We tend to think that we need a solution for people who have been wronged but some of those wrongs were God awful and are unforgivable.

Many mistakes have been made over many years. It is right that apologies are made by the Taoiseach and others in this House and that people hold up their hands to the wrongs the State has done. However, we need to find a mechanism for the follow-through that is often lacking. We all talked last week about the bravery and courage of the Stardust families in the face of what they were up against. When we are dealing with people who were in these institutions, we are talking about people who were absolutely wronged and who were on the periphery of society. That is the problem. People were put out of society and left on the periphery. They had no power. That is why it has taken so long, in some cases, to have any level of rectification in respect of the wrongs that were done. We need to get far better at this. We would also be far better if we could deal with the issues in front of us. If we tackle those difficulties, we will avoid creating situations whereby in 20 or 30 years' time, we will be making apologies for wrongs that are being done today or making apologies for situations where wrongs have been done and people still have not seen any element of justice or rectification.

We have to do our absolute best by recognising the wrongs that were done. We are all in agreement in that regard. We are all in agreement to some degree that we should do our absolute best to deliver those services to the people who have been negatively impacted by the State in some of its worst moments. We should do everything that can be done to ensure those survivors do not have to fight battles daily.

We can and should do better, and it is only right that we do. That is what people expect and why they are sometimes disappointed by what happens in this House. We do not necessarily tackle the issues in front of us. People say that this Government and many governments over many years have not had their backs even when everybody accepts there is an issue and that wrongs were done. In some cases, we are dealing with abject torture and disgraceful behaviour and it is only the individuals' own words that can do justice to it. However, it always takes too long and is too hard a battle and we need that not to be the case.

We all know the asks. They are out there now. We know what the legislation covers and does not cover. We need to bridge the gap and ensure that individuals are not once again put outside and retraumatised.

We know that over a long history, many wrongs have been done. As I said, those without power have always found it difficult. They have always needed to become advocates and activists, and to go above and beyond to bring any element of justice. We need to make it easier.

For the week that is in it, I will mention the legacy Bill. We all knew what the British Government had promised to do and it has followed through. We know the reasons the British Government has done it. There are still families who have questions they need answered. The legislation is about Britain drawing a line under its role in a dirty war. I am glad the State has taken an interstate case in respect of what is going on. I think of those in my constituency and the surrounding areas who have been impacted greatly. They include Hugh Watters and Jack Rooney, who died as a result of the Dundalk bombing on the same evening that Donnelly's Bar was attacked, and Seamus Ludlow. We are approaching the 50th anniversary of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Not only have there been major failings by the British Government, there have also been failings by this State.

I reiterate that we need to do our absolute best in respect of rectification. We must ensure we can play our part in providing justice for those people who have gone too long without it.

None of us can do justice to the absolute travesty people were put through in residential institutions. As I said previously, we know their asks. We have to make sure we can follow through and deliver on all the asks that we can and, therefore, I would like to see us be solution-focused into the future and not once again traumatise people, particularly women, who have been through far too much already.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. There are 21 sections and 4 Parts. There has been no regulatory impact analysis and no explanation has been given for that. It faced pre-legislative scrutiny. A detailed report was carried out, which gave a detailed background and had ten key recommendations in addition to other recommendations. I understand all ten have been completely ignored. The Minister of State made a speech in which he spoke about the importance of listening to survivors, which we should all do, but acting on what we heard has gone by the board.

I have taken a particular interest in this topic for many reasons, both professional and personal, since the day I was elected. I am not given to despair, but it is extremely difficult to watch each Bill and each scheme perpetuate the abuse for the survivors. We have here a scheme ostensibly to finish or complete Caranua - new friend - which I am on record as saying was anything but a new friend, but was the old enemy, an sean-namhaid, in disguise. Now, we abuse the language to call it a new friend. That Caranua finished accepting standard applications back in December 2020. Here we are, almost four years later, putting through legislation to wind up Caranua, which stopped providing payments back on 11 December 2020 and ceased as an operational entity on 24 March. It received 6,181 applications and made more than 57,000 support payments. I mention that because a huge element of this Bill proposes to deal with Caranua. I am told that people are still waiting for their cases to be finished. The Minister of State might tell me today, because I only know of one that has been highlighted to me. Are other people and applicants still in that position? That Caranua, which I will come back to later, was to me maladministered; I use that word. Prior to that, we had the Magdalen scheme, which was maladministered. Those words were used in 2017 by the Ombudsman, Mr. Peter Tyndall, who called his report Opportunity Lost: An Investigation by the Ombudsman into the Administration of the Magdalen Restorative Justice Scheme. He stated, "I therefore find that the manner in which the Scheme was administered by the Department constitutes maladministration." There are two pages in which he goes through it all, pointing out which parts were maladministered. One would imagine we would learn from that. We had the McAleese report, where the truth was dragged out in the end that the State was absolutely involved by its non-action. Indeed, there was no supervision, and clothes were actually being sent to be washed from the various State organisations and so on. Then, this scheme was set up and had to have Mr. Justice Quirke tell us how to do it properly and how to be inclusive, which was all ignored, of course. He talked about such measures as the special medical card - not the enhanced medical card, but the Health (Amendment) Act card - that was given to people with haemophilia. He asked for that as one of the things to be given. Mr. Peter Tyndall's report is worth reading.

Let us look then at what led us here, a quarter of a century after the former Taoiseach apologised to us, saying that the people and young children in these institutions were not to blame. We look at that and see what has happened since then. I will make a quick comment on the redress board that was set up following that apology. At the same time, the Ryan investigation, which became known as the Ryan report, was set up in parallel with the redress board. That redress board accepted applications from residents of 139 reformatories, industrial schools and other relevant institutions. The Minister of State should listen to those figures. This was a country of incarceration, but for poor people and those without power. That functioned up until 2011, received an extension of time, and 15,579 people applied. In this new scheme we are doing now, we are making it a condition precedent that people had to have to come before the board or get a ward of court, otherwise they cannot avail of the limited supports for some people provided in the Bill. Can you imagine that we now have another divisive scheme that excludes people all over again? We spent a century doing that in the reformatory and industrial schools, mother and baby homes and all the institutions and now we copperfasten it in each scheme we bring in.

There was one good example that came directly from the Department of Education, which I will come back to, which seems to have gotten good praise but which we have completely ignored. With regard to this scheme, does the Minister know what we did with survivors? I have to declare a conflict of interest because I was there in a previous life, and if I disclose anything with regard to the clients I was with, I will still be committing an offence. More importantly and more relevantly, if the people who went before the redress board declared what they got, they would be committing an offence. They were sworn to secrecy. I am not sure whether the Ceann Comhairle is aware of this, but this is what happened. This is the legislation that was brought in. They had gagging orders; they could not talk about their direct experience of that. I was part of that. I earned money from that. I went along as a professional. People talked about being retraumatised by the cross-examination. The talked about the retraumatisation of the religious orders' males and females writing letters that were read out to that redress board. Nobody was present, but the letter assumed great importance because it came from the religious organisations. Fast forward to the mother and baby homes and again, the same type of importance was being put on the evidence from professionals and religious organisations while the survivors received the wording "contaminated" evidence. This is where all this started. That legislation is still intact. We were, in fact, retraumatising people and attempting to re-criminalise them because, let us remember, some people had been committed by court for doing nothing other than being poor. That is what happened. That was that redress scheme. Now, we are building that into this legislation to say people had to apply to that in the first place before they can do this. Sometimes, I am lost for words with this because I wonder at what stage we will learn.

The Stardust inquiry lately brought into acute focus for me the absolute class distinction in this country that is never talked about. What happened with the Stardust victims would not have happened with any other group that did not live in that area. Similarly, the thousands who went through our industrial schools are being retraumatised at every step of the way. We have a mother and baby home that is referred to in the documents I have read and the Magdalen scheme as examples that justify what we are doing here. Therefore, we are not going to give people the Health (Amendment) Act health card, which gives admission to more services. We are doing what we did with the Magdalen scheme and what we did with the mother and baby homes scheme that is in the process of being rolled out. People will say that it is completely discriminatory and that it is utterly wrong. Why are we now doing the exact same thing that we know is wrong? I really would like the Minister of State, as the new Minister, to leave his script at the end of this and try to address the issue. I do not wish to be confrontational or argumentative. I am too tired for it, actually. I despair that we keep doing the same bad things in the guise of the patriarchal and patronising system that tells people, "This is good for you when we know very well it is bad for you". Who are we talking about here? There is any amount of research that tells us that survivors are poorer, doing less well and experiencing intergenerational trauma. Of course, this scheme will not help the families of survivors. It is not going to help the children or grandchildren, even though the trauma is intergenerational.

Other schemes did, and I referred directly to the educational finance board, which seems to have got great praise from the survivors. It is directly run by the Department of Education, and when praise is due, it is due. It responded to the needs of the survivors who came forward, and that is in their words. What do we do with that? We ignore the good example and follow all the bad examples.

Just in case that anyone thinks I am given to exaggeration, let me look at the Ryan report on the industrial and reformatory schools. It refers to "a fundamentally flawed system of inspection". It stated that the Department of Education's "deferential and submissive attitude" towards the religious congregations compromised its ability to fulfil its statutory duty of inspection. It also referred to "systemic use of 'corporal punishment'", and how a "climate of fear, created by pervasive, excessive and arbitrary punishment, permeated most institutions and all those run for boys". It stated that there was "endemic sexual abuse in boys' institutions and predatory sexual abuse against girls". Sexual abuse was endemic in boys' institutions; it was not systemic for girls but girls were subjected to predatory sexual abuse by male employees, visitors and in outside placements, and so on. This was a system completely out of control, run by the abusers, unmonitored and unsupervised by the Government. Hence, the redress board was set up, and then we gagged it, stopped them and retraumatised them, and we are still doing it.

Then we look at the pre-legislative scrutiny. There were, as I said, ten key recommendations, and every single one of them was ignored. I have a little time, so I am going to go through them. It said that legislation should apply to all survivors, regardless of whether they received an award or a settlement. That was not accepted. It will only provide for those two situations, which many of us have mentioned. Recommendation No. 2 said that all survivors who receive a Health (Amendment) Act, HAA card. It was not accepted by the Minister.

Survivors of institutions living abroad who spent time in Magdalen institutions and received a payment under the redress should be eligible. This was not accepted. "The proposed €3,000 once-off payment... is insufficient". This was ignored. Another recommendation said the Department of Education should liaise with the UK's Department of Work and Pensions to ensure that anyone who does get that small amount should not have their entitlements affected. That was left open and I think there will be some negotiation. It was not quite rejected but not quite accepted because the last line said that England will do what England will do. Legislation should ensure that survivors are not reinstitutionalised and, therefore, HAA cards should provide for home nursing and home care services. This was not included.

Educational supports should be for survivors and their families. This was not accepted. It was recommended that the legislation "should provide for the establishment of a professional Advocacy Service as a Statutory Body". This was not accepted. It was recommended that the interdepartmental Government committee should be reconvened "as an urgent priority". This was not accepted. Provision for a State pension for all survivors was not accepted.

I have gone through the whole lot. None of them was accepted. That lovely speech from the Minister who said we must listen and learn has once again turned language on its head. It is that we must listen and ignore; we will continue on with the divisive, discriminatory policy; and we will treat them as "them", out there somewhere and nothing to do with us, like the Governments that allowed this to happen.

I am here today and I am repeating - and I hate repetition - that I just cannot believe what continues to happen. At what stage will the females in government and its three parties actually come in and speak up for women, as well as the men of course? I saw one Government backbencher come in between yesterday and today. Where are they? How can one single female TD or Minister stand over the fact that we are going to exclude thousands of people from the mother and baby homes scheme because they spent less than six months in one? Tongue in cheek, I said to Deputy Sherlock with his new baby that he wasted six months of his life caring for that baby because according to the policy of the Minister and the Government, he does not need to look after a baby at all. He can let it scream for six months. It does not affect them at all. They are a tabula rasa. They hear nothing and they do nothing. That is the mother and baby homes scheme.

The religious orders were let off the hook completely in 2002 by the then Minister, Michael Woods, who settled for €128 million and gave an indemnity. Some of that money was then used for the Department of Education, which did very well in giving out grants. The next thing was Caranua, with €105 million. I sat on the Committee of Public Accounts and I watched with despair when the CEO of Caranua came before us. I will not mention names here. I watched with despair and disgust the manner in which survivors were referred to by that paid official. I saw more chairs of that board going through a revolving door. I saw more agency staff being brought in with very little training. After a few months they were gone, and they were assigned as key workers to the survivors who came before us. I wondered what was happening, where this money was and what was happening with it. I realised that €128 million - a drop in the ocean - was given in 2002, and then the religious orders were struck not by guilt but by the forcefulness of the Ryan report in 2009. They voluntarily came forward with a bit more.

Every scheme that we bring in is ad hoc and reactionary with regard to the sum of money coming forward and available from the religious orders. Once again, I am not here to castigate religious orders but I am here to castigate what they did in the institutions throughout this country. Yes, they should be responsible and they should pay. Just yesterday, I asked for an update from the Minister on the negotiations regarding what money the 18 religious orders are now going to give. He does not know because it is confidential. It was to be done in six months but an extension of time was given. Absolute kid gloves, respect and dignity are being given to this process to negotiate with the religious orders that were in charge of all of this abuse. Maybe that it is what we have learned; that we should treat people with respect but we are doing the complete opposite with survivors. We are treating them with utter disrespect, and we are looking down on them in the same manner that we have done for the whole century-and-a-half history of institutionalisation.

The Minister of State should forgive me if I am hot under the collar regarding this scheme, and if the Government had any sense, it would simply stop this. It set up a consultative forum and a consultation process, and it had people do research to tell us how vulnerable residents were on an intergenerational basis. Then the Government ignored it all and left us with no choice but to say, "I cannot support this". This is appalling legislation in the guise of saying that we are now helping them again but we will help only that small group that was in a group of institutions that previously applied to a redress board which they found traumatic, or went to the court and found it equally traumatic, and we will ignore all the others, such as the children who were boarded out from the mother and baby homes, the children who spent less than six months in them, and all the other institutions that have been recognised. For God's sake, please. For God's sake, at what stage will we learn?

Deputy Violet-Anne Wynne

I want to pay tribute to the survivors from the County Clare Nursery, Kilrush, and thank and acknowledge Ms Rita McCarthy in west Clare for all of her work and research that brought that little piece of history to life for us in west Clare.

It is extremely disappointing that the Government has continued with this legislation for survivors, which allows for any survivors to be excluded. I cannot overstate how cold and heartless that approach is. That hurt can never be undone. It is a theme of the Government in this Dáil term. We know there are issues around listening to survivors, those who know best.

We have seen the same, almost arrogance, displayed when it came to the Women of Honour and the debacle that unfolded there, and that was only when drafting the terms of reference. Then there was all the confusion about whether or not the inquiry would be public or whether it would include all victims again. It transpired that it seemed it would be a representative group of the victims. The Tánaiste at the time mentioned that he was cognisant of not putting too much time into this with so many years having gone by and the victims not receiving the supports they needed. There was also the issue of money being spent in that way too. If the was money was spent right in the first place and if the scheme was person-centred and based and grounded in human rights, that ultimately would mean the inclusion of all who were impacted and affected and for their inclusion to be equal.

Is it not completely hypocritical of the Government to have called on the public to assist it during the Covid pandemic and then to have turned its back on communities that need it now more than ever such as survivors of institutional and residential abuse, never mind the significant delays that they have faced historically and how that has impacted them and triggered all sorts of difficulties? To exclude any survivor is wrong and it is frustrating that no progress has been made in this.

I wanted to ask the Minister if there had been a particular reason so many people were being excluded from this legislation, particularly those who were found to have not applied for the previous redress scheme. Excluding people sends the message that their trauma and hurt does not matter. This is the Government’s attempt to do the right thing and to right some serious wrongs that can never be undone but can go some way to help those who have suffered immense and serious trauma that has had life-long implications for them and their families. In the big picture of the various Bills and all the progress that has been made, they are really just gestures. They are what we can do in this space and time but if we are really about trying to correct the wrongs as best we can, it is a no-brainer: all victims and all those who feel they have been impacted to this day have to be included. The refusal, despite the endless pleas of the survivors excluded from the scheme, is hard to bear. This refusal is despite the survivors of the most horrific abuse having to relive their most traumatic experiences in a desperate attempt to prove that they deserve to be included is also hard to bear.

Having listened to the contributions to the debate yesterday and today, I am actually ashamed. Three years ago the Taoiseach apologised on behalf of the State for the atrocities that took place in mother and baby homes. At the time, the Government seemed to be going in the right direction. Survivors and Members of this House could be forgiven for being optimistic and expecting that a complete and inclusive redress scheme would follow. Instead the Government has chosen to humiliate and retraumatise survivors with this legislation and the previous scheme.

The most upsetting part of this entire debacle is that that in a generation from now, a future Minister will be in the House again discussing a redress scheme for those who find themselves institutionalised in Ireland today. It is said that those who do not know their history are destined to repeat it. Every person on this island is aware of our history of institutionalising people considered inconvenient and undesirable, yet we seem to be continuing in the same way. The programme for Government included a commitment to end direct provision, for example, yet here we are four years later with no end in sight and no long-term plan. One of the first HIQA reports carried out in IPAS accommodation in Knockalisheen, County Clare found that the human rights of residents were not consistently respected, promoted or upheld. I remind the Minister of State that few reports are available on IPAS accommodations. I cannot help wonder if it is the same when it comes to family hubs or emergency accommodation around the country. Let us not forget those aged under 65 with disabilities institutionalised in nursing homes. History is repeating itself and it is happening on the Government’s watch. I hope in the future when the Government has to offer a redress scheme to current victims of institutionalisation that it will not be as shambolic and it will allow for the full inclusion of all victims. It does not have to be this way. I urge the Minister of State to take on board the contributions that were made today and yesterday by all parties and Members’ appeals to include all who need the scheme.

Minister of State at the Department of Education (Deputy Hildegarde Naughton)

I thank all the Deputies for their contributions. I reiterate that the Government is deeply conscious of the trauma which 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.

I would also like to echo the Minister, Deputy Foley’s appreciation for the work and commitment of those survivors who engaged with the Department, particularly the members of the consultative forum with which she has met on a number of occasions. Their insights and experience have helped to shape the package of supports which was approved by the Government last June.

I will try to address some of the issues raised by Deputies, many of which I am sure will be further discussed in detail on Committee and Report Stages.

With regard to the issue of eligibility for the new supports, the Bill provides that those supports will be made available to persons who are defined as “former residents’’, that is, persons who received an award of redress from the Residential Institutions Redress Board, RIRB, or a similar court award or settlement. This is a continuation of the approach taken for Caranua, and reflects the manner in which the State has provided redress to those who experienced abuse while resident in one of the relevant institutions.

Overall, payments totalling almost €1 billion were made to 15,600 by the redress board. It was possible for individuals to make an application to the RIRB over an extended period, but the deadline for receipt of applications was in 2011, after which the scheme was closed. Therefore, at this point in time, it is not possible to extend eligibility on that basis beyond this cohort.

With regard to the health supports provided for in the Bill, differing views were expressed by survivors, including that they should be provided with what is referred to as a HAA card. Again, it is important for Deputies to remember that the HAA card was provided for under the Health (Amendment) Act 1996 and was introduced specifically to meet the very significant health needs of a particular group of individuals who had contracted a serious and life-threatening condition, that is, individuals who had contracted Hepatitis C through the administration within the State of contaminated blood and blood products.

The enhanced medical card provided for in this Bill will ensure survivors have access to a range of health supports through the HSE, including GP services, home nursing and home helps, chiropody and podiatry and physiotherapy. This approach is consistent with the approach taken in respect of the Magdalen laundries and mother and baby institutions schemes. Similarly, the €3,000 health support payment for survivors who are living abroad is consistent with the approach taken in the mother and baby institutions payment scheme and ensures that both groups are treated in an equitable manner.

A number of Deputies raised the concern that for those survivors who are resident in the UK in particular receiving a payment of this kind might have an adverse impact on means-tested benefits. The Department of Education is liaising with the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth on this matter as similar issues arise for those benefiting from the mother and baby institutions payment scheme.

Contact has been already made with the authorities in the UK to progress this issue and there will continue to be further engagement over the coming period. However, it will ultimately be a matter for the UK authorities to decide how to treat relevant payments.

Regarding advocacy supports, the consultative forum’s report highlighted the genuine and often severe difficulties many survivors experience in engaging with and accessing public services. Survivors have identified a pressing requirement for signposting and advocacy for access to these and other services. As the Minister outlined yesterday, Sage Advocacy has already been engaged by the Department to provide this service and has a very strong track record in providing advocacy supports to vulnerable adults, older people and healthcare patients and has already begun to roll out this service for survivors.

Sage Advocacy is already engaging with individual survivors to assist them in accessing the services they require. It is also engaging with relevant groups and organisations to promote awareness of its availability and is developing and implementing an outreach and communications plan to ensure that as many survivors as possible are made aware of the supports it can provide, and the broader supports that are available. The Department will also continue to engage with relevant stakeholders in this regard, including through Ireland’s embassies abroad.

The issue of memorialisation and the need to consult with survivors was also mentioned. As Deputies will be aware, a national centre for research and remembrance, which will stand as a site of conscience to honour equally all those who were resident in industrial schools, Magdalen laundries, mother and baby homes, county home institutions, reformatories and related institutions, is being developed on the site of the former Magdalen laundry on Sean MacDermott Street in Dublin and will include a research centre and repository of records related to institutional trauma in the 20th century, which will form part of the National Archives.

This is a whole-of-government initiative being led by a steering group with membership from the key State stakeholders, including the Departments of Education and Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. It is recognised that it is crucial that the project is informed by input from all relevant stakeholders. An initial, open consultation process was undertaken in 2023 and further consultations and engagement on specific elements of the centre, particularly with survivors and former residents, will take place in due course.

The importance attached by the Government to ongoing consultation with survivors on all issues affecting them is also reflected in the recent appointment of Ms Patricia Carey to the role of special advocate for survivors. The special advocate’s remit will encompass industrial and reformatory schools and related institutions, mother and baby institutions, county home institutions, Magdalen laundries and those adopted, boarded out or the subject of an illegal birth registration. The role of the special advocate will be crucial to promoting the collective interests of survivors, as expressed by them, and to amplifying their voices as a central, essential input into Government deliberations on matters that affect them into the future.

I am sure there will be further detailed discussions on these and other points raised on Committee and Report Stages.

Question put and agreed to.