Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I will begin and end with a quote given to me many years ago by survivors of Magdalen laundries who formed the basis of the work I was asked me to undertake during my time as a Dublin City councillor, namely that the antithesis of restorative justice is the retraumatisation of victims. We should keep that quote close to us as we endeavour on the road before us in honouring and providing supports to those have been failed unimaginably by the State.

Yesterday, I spoke to a survivor advocate who simplified this Bill, which, in many ways, is complex. The person said the Bill is primarily a means to close Caranua rather than being about the provision of supports for survivors. That was her understanding. Only one part of the Bill deals with supports and most of the measures listed are already available to survivors under the medical card scheme. I have asked several parliamentary questions about the difference between medical cards to which I have yet to receive a response.

The Government is using the Bill to mask the fact that it is once again ignoring the views of survivors. The Government has repeatedly consulted survivors and then ignored them. The Government should put in place the meaningful services for survivors outlined in the final summary report of June 2021. Failing that, the Bill should be prevented from progressing to the next stage as without substantial changes, it will do nothing more than close the door to survivors who need help. They are not my words; they are the words of Mary Donovan, a survivor.

Specific issues of concern in the Bill include eligibility. The Government has ignored the plight of many survivors who could not apply for redress or were excluded from applying to Caranua. Survivors have asked why the Government has ignored the findings of the survivor consultation group, which advocated strongly for supports to be made available to all survivors. I have the report in front of me and I will read some of us into the Dáil record shortly. They have asked why supports are restricted to those survivors who received an award under the 2002 Act. Survivors, of course, need help with health and housing, as well as financial help, yet the report only seems to cater for help with education, albeit that is important.

Why has the Government decided to award money to education and not health, housing and financial support for survivors, many of whom are over the age of 65? Has the Government examined what it would cost to provide help in these areas? This should be done before proceeding with the Bill and any assessment should take into account the elderly profile and life expectancy of survivors. What can the Government tell us about the finances of the interdepartmental committee that has examined these issues since 2018? How did its findings impact on the decision to prioritise education over other areas?

We understand a private healthcare package for Irish and UK based survivors is needed. It is unfathomable that this has yet to be made available. On the advanced medical card, the healthcare package is little more than what is available under the medical card given by the HSE. Can the Minister explain the difference between enhanced and ordinary medical cards? How many institutional survivors who are ineligible for the enhanced medical card are in possession of an ordinary medical card?

Given the unpaid forced labour and lack of education resulting in a loss of opportunity, together with the abuse suffered by survivors resulting in physical and psychological trauma, why has the Government not made any provision for regular payments to be made to survivors? That was, of course, another key recommendation of the consultative forum. Why has the Government not made any provision for housing to assist the large proportion of survivors who reside in areas of deprivation, what we once knew as RAPID areas, that is, recognised areas of social deprivation and poverty? That was another key recommendation of the consultative forum.

The Bill does nothing to deal with intergenerational trauma. What measures are in it to address intergenerational trauma? For example, why does the Bill not help to secure education for the next generation? It is important to note that trauma is passed down.

Did the Minister or Government meet the survivor consultative forum before they published the Bill? Have they spoken to any of them since? These are survivors who worked on the consultative forum for five years. I understand some members of the forum have contacted the Minister repeatedly to voice their opposition to the Bill, and I understand they have yet to receive a response from her office. Can she explain each and every decision in respect of each of the needs identified in the 2021 report? For every need, there is a specific reason survivors are particularly vulnerable. For example, dental care is often mentioned. As they did not receive it in school and often did not have the correct nutrition as children, their teeth are often in a poor state at this point. It is the for same bones. Osteoporosis, due to a bad diet as children, equals poor bones in adult life. It is a well established fact from literature that, across every indicator, survivors are not doing great and are probably doing less well than others in society of the same age.

None of the recommendations in the report was plucked from thin air. People have engaged for five years at the consultative forum and survivors have experienced a lifetime of trauma and hardship owing to abuse suffered in the institutions.

The only substantive provisions relate to the closing of Caranua. Is it appropriate to close Caranua when there are cases are not yet completed? This Bill is really about the end of supports and I just do not know how it can be described as a Bill for the support of survivors. The Government will say it has given money for education but it knows the age and health profile of survivors. There will not be a big uptake. If the Government's position is that it does not have the money, why did it try to prioritise education over health and the other needs identified by the consultative forum? If there is no money, why did it bother setting up the consultative forum in the first place?

The issue of medical cards is of great importance. The enhanced version is useless as an ordinary medical card for survivors currently struggling through the HSE, trying to gain access to dental care and trying to deal with a lifetime of poverty and trauma. The enhanced medical card does very little in this regard. The neglect the survivors suffered as children means they are more likely to have health problems now.

The other issue of significant importance concerns the payment for over-65s. The affected survivors worked when they should have been in school. It was an indentured form of labour that the State apologised for in 2013. We still stand here asking for recompense. The survivors never got paid and mostly worked in low-paid jobs in horrendous conditions. They should be paid for the work they did.

It is important to put on record some of the recommendations made in the final summary report on the survivors of residential and institutional abuse in June 2021. Many of them are not dealt with today, to the enormous shame of the Government, but also of also society. The number one issue concerned the health services. The report advocated several health initiatives for all survivors of residential institutions, regardless of whether they have gone through redress. The report indicates poor health outcomes for survivors as a result of experiences of abuse and trauma in early childhood. Initiatives outlined include Health (Amendment) Act medical card entitlement with additional benefits specific to dental services; enhanced access to the treatment purchase fund for survivors; the availability of mobility scooters and equipment to maximise independent living; the covering of funeral expenses; and counselling, psychiatric and psychological services to be readily available for both survivors and their families, and above all the children of survivors. The advocacy and facilitation of access to services and the establishment of a special provision agency are also asked for. The difficulties that survivors have in accessing mainstream services is well-documented in several reports and is referred to in the 2019 report. While many survivors of residential institutions have difficult and traumatic experiences in the redress system and in accessing services through Caranua, the closing of Caranua leaves survivors more vulnerable than ever.

The report recommended a special provision agency, a type of one-stop shop to point survivors to necessary social, health, housing and education services. This is crucial and it needs to be staffed with trauma-sensitive individuals familiar with the complex needs of survivors. It should have access to specific funding designated for survivors and not be affiliated with any religious organisations.

Pension rights for survivors of industrial schools are advocated, with payments to be made through the contributory State pension, the public service State pension or a private pension funded by the State.

The issue of housing looms large in the report. A large proportion of survivors reside in social housing in the RAPID areas, which are recognised as areas of social deprivation and poverty. Survivors need support and signposting to access accommodation and housing. Examples of good housing initiatives are quoted in the report and they include Tuath housing. The report recommends the building of a network within county councils, city councils, housing departments and housing associations to meet survivors' need for suitable accommodation. There has been a small amount of progress in this regard at the Seán McDermott Street site, and that should be replicated elsewhere when it becomes mainstream.

On archives memorialisation, the report requests consultation with Ministers from the Department of children and the Department of Education on how to manage archives and records of survivors and possible memorial sites. The Seán McDermott Street site has progressed significantly but it should be remembered that not all survivors feel it is reflective of their struggle and what they endured in industrial schools, which may be different from that of Magdalen laundry survivors, who had equally traumatic and harrowing experiences at the hands of the State.

The report refers to records and tracing access. Survivors who wish to access their records see it as a matter of a human right to information on their heritage and families. Support through the tracing services, Barnardos and other bodies is very important to them. The report is very clear about not leaving any survivors behind, specifically those residing in the UK, who, let us be clear, had to flee from the very harsh environment in Ireland during our darker period.

The publication of the diaspora strategy in 2020 by the Government recognises the need to heal relationships with emigrants who left Ireland because of discrimination or as victims of institutional abuse. Survivors of institutional abuse in the UK and farther afield have indicated that services for survivors were overly Ireland-focused, despite the fact that well over 30% of survivors of institutions emigrated or rather fled to Britain when they left the institutions at the age of 16. Elderly survivors now living in the US and Canada should also be included.

The report advocated that UK survivors be recognised as having specific health needs and issues that are not readily understood by UK health system personnel. They seek support through having the Irish Government facilitate survivors in being seen by a consultant quickly when needed, ensuring more rapid access to the NHS. One idea put forward was to pay a consultant and reclaim through the Government. Another was the making of a health payment that would not impact upon other benefits. Survivors need access to culturally sensitive, ongoing and unlimited counselling wherever they may be, in recognition of the fact that their trauma started here.

There are recommendations on the social welfare of survivors. I have touched on this matter in terms of pension payments that would allow survivors, who suffered so much in Ireland, to live a life of dignity. That requires payment.

Some aspects of the Bill are very welcome but it does not go nearly far enough towards repaying the extraordinary debt we owe to survivors. The antithesis of restorative justice is the retraumatisation of victims. I deign to think of anyone watching the proceedings being left behind, having experienced unimaginable pain at the hands of the State.

See this speech in context