Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I apologise; I may need to leave the Chamber as the Joint Committee on Justice is sitting at the same time. The Bill has two main purposes: to enable the provision of certain health and educational supports to survivors of abuse in residential institutions; and to dissolve the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Board, commonly known as Caranua. The Bill provides for the amendment of the Nursing Home Support Scheme Act 2009 to ensure awards previously made under the residential institutions redress scheme are disregarded from financial assessments under that Act. It also provides for the amendment of the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Act 2023 to account of the supports to be provided under this Bill.

It falls far short of what survivors want and even further short of what pre-legislative scrutiny by the committee on education asked for. Unfortunately, survivors are left in the position where they feel ignored and their voices unheard. In an article yesterday's Irish Examiner, campaigners outlined their difficulties with the Bill:

Campaigners say a Bill that is due to be progressed in the Dáil this week must be stopped as it does not support survivors in its current format. 'The Government is using this Bill to masquerade the fact that it is ignoring the views of survivors once again. The Government repeatedly consults survivors and then ignores them,' said survivor Tom Cronin a member of the Consultative Forum.

However, campaigners say a healthcare package outlined in the Bill is 'little more' than was is already available under the medical card system. They say the legislation should provide all survivors with a Health Amendment Act, HAA, card rather than the proposed enhanced medical card.

The proposed €3,000, once-off payment for former residents living overseas has also been ... [described] 'insufficient'. Instead financial support should be index linked to the cost of living and provide additional payments to survivors who have complex health needs, campaigners said, and agreement must be sought with UK that they disregard should payments if applicants are in receipt of means-tested benefits.

Survivors say that given the unpaid forced labour and lack of education resulting in loss of opportunity together with the abuse suffered, resulting in physical and psychological trauma, there must be a provision for regular payments to be made to survivors from the age of 65.

Mary Donovan, who is also a member of the Consultative Forum said: 'We ask the Government to put in place meaningful services for survivors that were outlined in the Final Summary Report June 2021. Failing that, this Bill should be stopped from progressing to the next Stage, as without substantial changes it will do nothing more than to close the door on survivors who need help.'

During pre-legislative scrutiny the education committee made ten key recommendations. Which of these recommendations have been ignored and which have been adopted? Are we missing something? I think he will agree with us that we need to listen to the victims. The first of the ten key recommendations states: "The legislation should ensure that all survivors of residential institutions covered by the Bill have equal access to all supports outlined in the Bill, irrespective of whether they have already received an award or settlement from the residential institutions redress board, Caranua, or a similar court award or settlement." Can the Minister confirm this is the case? The second recommendation states:

The Health HAA card provided for under the Health (Amendment) Act 1996 covers more services and has been identified as a key request from survivor groups. Therefore, the legislation should provide all survivors with a HAA card rather than the proposed enhanced medical card. It is not clear, from section 4, whether this recommendation has been met.

Will the Minister clarify whether the proposed medical card support is in line with the HAA card?

The third recommendation states: "The legislation should ensure that survivors of residential institutions covered by the proposed legislation, who are living abroad, and who also spent time in a Magdalene institution and received a relevant payment under the Redress for Women Resident in Certain Institutions Act 2015, are treated differently to other former residents living overseas under Head 5 (2) of the General Scheme." In practical terms, this means they should be eligible for the payment. It seems that the Minister has excluded them from the payment under section 21.

The fourth recommendation states:

The proposed €3,000 once-off payment for former residents living overseas is insufficient. The payment should be index linked to the cost of living and provide additional payments to survivors who have complex health needs on a case-by-case basis.

The Minister seems to have ignored this recommendation.

The fifth recommendation states: "The Department of Education should liaise with the United Kingdom’s Department of Work and Pensions as an urgent priority in order to ensure people in the UK do not fall foul of means testing." What work has been done in this regard? It is absolutely vital that agreement should be made with the UK.

The sixth recommendation states:

The Legislation should provide a mechanism to ensure, insofar as possible, survivors are not re-institutionalised in older age or because of ill health against their wishes. To this end, HAA cards should provide for home nursing services and home care services.

Under section 4, the Minister proposes to provide "the home help service as specified in section 61 of the Act of 1970, following an assessment of needs made by a registered medical practitioner or nurse". Will she clarify to what extent that home care will help to meet the recommendation? How much home care are we talking about here, as survivors are evidently fearful it will be inadequate?

The seventh recommendation states:

Access to education is critical in terms of addressing the long-term and intergenerational effects of residential institutional abuse. The legislation should include a provision expressly providing for educational supports for survivors and their families. In practical terms, the Department of Education should establish a non-means tested bursary to provide individual cash grants up to €3,000 annually to survivors and their immediate family members engaging in further and higher education.

There is a genuine effort to address this and it seems to have been met in section 6. However, the Minister has not taken up the suggestion of non-means tester bursaries or inclusion of family members. In view of the ingrained effect of intergenerational trauma, this is unfortunate.

The Bill should provide for the establishment of professional advocacy services as a statutory body. The terms of reference should specify this, and we feel that has been ignored by the Minister. The high level interdepartmental group should be reconvened by the Department of Education as an urgent priority and a secretariat should be established in the Department to service the interdepartmental group and co-ordinate all relevant activities. I want an update on that.

Finally, the Bill should contain provisions for a State contributory pension for all survivors to acknowledge their years spent working in residential institutions without payment. That would also be a recognition of the long-term and diverse ramifications of residential institutional abuse on their career prospects and ensure sufficient income to live out the remainder of their lives in dignity. This has been completely ignored by the Minister, as far as we can see.

We are disappointed with the conservatism of the Bill. It completely fails to live up to the responsibilities of the State and the recommendations of the education committee. We hope the Minister can reflect on our comments and improve the Bill as it goes through the House.

See this speech in context