Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The select committee is meeting to consider the Supports for Survivors of Residential Institutional Abuse Bill 2024. I remind members and officials to make sure their mobile phones are switched off for the duration of the meeting as they interfere with the broadcasting equipment, even on silent mode. I welcome the Minister for Education, Deputy Foley, and her officials to the meeting. I remind all members that, should a vote be called, members must physically be present in the committee room in order to vote. We will now proceed to consideration of the Bill. I invite the Minister to make her opening statement.

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the members of the committee for scheduling this meeting to facilitate Committee Stage of the Supports for Survivors of Residential Institutional Abuse Bill 2024 and for their engagement throughout the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. As I noted on Second Stage, I am deeply conscious of the enormous trauma that has been endured by all survivors of abuse and I know that nothing we do now can ever undo the hurt that has been caused. I have met and engaged with survivors of abuse in industrial schools to hear directly from them. I have been and remain deeply moved by the powerful testimony survivors shared with me.

Last June, the Government approved the provision of a package of supports and services for survivors of abuse in residential institutions comprising a number of elements that relate to health, education, advocacy and trauma-informed practice. The development of the new package of supports was informed by consideration of the reports of a consultative forum that comprised survivors of residential institutions who were supported by professional facilitators. It was also informed by other relevant reports and submissions, including the Facing the Future Together conference report, produced by the Christine Buckley Centre, Right of Place Second Chance, Barnardos, One in Four and other relevant stakeholders.

This marks a new phase of the State providing ongoing support to survivors and builds on the response to the issue to date. The response, which included the establishment of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, the Residential Institutions Redress Board, the Education Finance Board and Caranua, has involved expenditure of approximately €1.5 billion, including direct redress payments and other supports for survivors amounting to approximately €1.1 billion.

This Bill has two purposes, namely, to enable the delivery of health and education supports to survivors of abuse in residential institutions, such as industrial schools and reformatories, and to provide for the dissolution of the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Board, also known as Caranua.

Section 4 provides for the delivery of a package health supports and services to former residents which will allow them access to GP services, drugs, medications, home nursing and home help, dental, ophthalmic and aural services, counselling, chiropody, podiatry and physiotherapy. This entitlement is a medical card for life and it is not subject to means test or to review.

In recognition of the fact that approximately one third of survivors of abuse in residential institutions live outside the State, section 5 of the Bill provides for the making of a one-off health support payment of €3,000 to survivors who are resident abroad in lieu of the enhanced medical card to support their health needs. Like the health supports, this is the same approach as was taken in the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Act 2023.

With regard to education supports, section 6 of the Bill provides for the payment, on application by a survivor and subject to criteria determined under the Bill, of a grant to assist in engaging in education. Survivors will only be required to demonstrate they have registered for a course and paid whatever fee applies. They will be free to spend the grant as they see fit to support their studies, whether to purchase a laptop, fund travel costs or purchase necessary materials. This scheme will also ensure that survivors are not required to pay the student contribution charge where it would otherwise apply. These grants will be in addition to the wider range of enhanced supports in place for those seeking to engage in further and higher education, including the free fees initiative, the Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, student grant scheme and the back to education allowance, as well as initiatives such as Springboard.

Part 3 of the Bill contains a number of standard provisions that relate to the dissolution of Caranua. Caranua's purpose was to disburse funding supports to survivors in areas such as health, housing and education from a ring-fenced fund of €110 million, plus interest of €1.38 million, that was provided by the relevant congregations following the publication of the Ryan report in 2009. As the funding available to Caranua was finite in nature and could not, under the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Act 2012, be supplemented by Exchequer funding, Caranua began winding down its operations in 2018 and effectively closed in March 2021. It is therefore necessary to provide for Caranua's dissolution.

I draw the committee's attention to two sections in this Part. Section 14 provides for the transfer of Caranua's records to the Department and the use of those records for a number of specified purposes. I will be very clear. These records do not include accounts or testimonies relating to survivors' experiences in the residential institution of the type that are held by the Residential Institutions Redress Board or the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. Caranua's records relate solely to its role of disbursing funding to survivors, including day-to-day administrative records and records relating to applications made by survivors.

These data and records will continue to be subject to both GDPR and freedom of information legislation. Survivors will continue to be entitled to exercise their GDPR and FOI rights, including seeking a copy of their data. They will also be subject to the National Archives Act 1986. The preservation of the important records of the commission and of the redress board is being considered in the context of the establishment of the new national centre for research and remembrance.

Section 17 of the Bill provides for the use of whatever funding is transferred to the Minister when Caranua is dissolved and requires that this funding is utilised for purposes benefiting survivors. However, very limited funding of approximately €60,000 remains available to Caranua at this time.

Part 4 of the Bill contains a number of miscellaneous provisions, including provisions relating to data and for the amendment of the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Act 2009 and the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Act 2023. While I acknowledge that it has not been possible to accept all of the recommendations made by the committee arising from the pre-legislative scrutiny process, I note a number of areas where I have sought to progress the issues raised. Regarding data, my Department has engaged further with the Data Protection Commission on the committee's recommendations and the Bill's provisions related to data processing and data protection have been further strengthened as a result.

Regarding engaging with the UK authorities to seek to ensure that any payments to survivors resident in UK do not impact their entitlement to means-tested payments, the Department is engaging with relevant colleagues in the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and the Irish Embassy in the UK to progress this. Embassy officials are liaising with their counterparts in the Department for Work and Pensions and HM Revenue and Customs. I have also written to the UK Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in this regard.

Regarding the recommendation that an interdepartmental group be established to oversee the delivery of the new supports for survivors, I can assure the committee that the Department is engaging with relevant colleagues in the Department of Health, the HSE and the Department of children on this, and intends to establish appropriate structures to ensure the effective delivery of the supports.

As I have already noted, last June the Government also approved the delivery of initiatives related to advocacy and trauma-informed practice. Although these do not require a legislative basis and are therefore not reflected in the Bill, they represent critical elements of the overall package. Indeed regarding advocacy, the consultative forum's report highlighted the particular challenges that survivors face in navigating access to public services.

The Department of Education therefore entered into a grant-funded agreement with Sage Advocacy, an independent advocacy organisation with a strong track record in providing advocacy support to older people, vulnerable adults and healthcare patients to develop information, support and advocacy services to assist individual survivors in engaging with and assessing relevant services and supports. As part of this arrangement, Sage is required to develop and implement a communication and outreach plan to ensure that as many survivors as possible are made aware of all relevant supports including the new supports to be provided under this Bill. Sage has already begun to roll out this service and is engaging with survivors and survivor groups to promote awareness of its availability.

The extent to which survivors continue to live with the trauma of the past has also been highlighted. The need for service providers to receive training in trauma-informed practice has been identified. For that reason, the Department of Education will arrange for the development of a training course and related training materials to be disseminated to service providers across the Civil Service and public service. It is intended to develop and roll out this initiative before the year end.

Given the importance of delivering to survivors the health and education support outlined in the Bill, I intend to progress its passage through both Houses of the Oireachtas as quickly as possible.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe that the scheme must be extended to include people who spend time in any institution and not just those in the institutions listed in the statutory fund Act. The legislation must ensure that all survivors of residential institutions have equal access to all supports. It is irrational and discriminatory to provide supports only to survivors who have received a payment under the Residential Institutions Redress Board or from the courts.

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will discuss those on Report Stage.

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When this Bill was first brought forward, the test the Department needed to pass was whether it was good enough. As it currently stands, I do not think that it is. Section 4(1) includes the wording "whom it is satisfied are former residents". One of the strongest recommendations from pre-legislative scrutiny was that all survivors, irrespective of whether they had already received an award assessment either through the redress board or the court should be considered eligible for this. The Department needs to outline why that was ignored. Without that being included, the Bill is exclusionary. It lacks equal access and fairness, particularly when we consider that the RIRB scheme was limited to 139 institutions. This exclusion compounds further the distress and trauma which survivors put to the committee during our engagement with them. It was not just the survivors here who said that. I draw the Minister's attention to the 2017 Reclaiming Self submission to the UN Committee against Torture as a follow-up to the Ryan report, which outlined in detail the same opinion that this test had not been reached.

Another part of Part 2 points to dental, ophthalmic, aural and counselling services being available. However, there is a lack of psychiatry and a lack of psychology. Survivors have been saying very clearly that they see a substantial need for those services.

In the Minister's opening statement, she referred to the enhanced medical card as a medical card for life. I wish to read into the record a comment that was put to me by somebody who already holds one of these enhanced medical cards.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would prefer if the Deputy did not name the person.

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not name the person and have not done so far. This person states clearly:

During the last five years I have attempted to use the card to help me to apply for dental, ophthalmic and aural services and outpatient services to no avail. The medical professionals are completely unaware of the existence of the enhanced medical card and what it might allow a person to qualify for. I have produced the card to the various health professionals in inpatient and outpatient settings and almost all without exception the person that I was dealing with had no knowledge of the card. In some cases, after undertaking further research, I would be informed that the enhanced medical card did not provide a route to services and that is the best, and indeed only, card to access services was the ordinary medical card. I have been advised that the enhanced medical card did not entitle me to any more services or speedier service than the ordinary medical card, which many of the survivors would already be entitled to either because of age or because of their financial situation.

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be clear, the ordinary medical card, as the Deputy referenced it, is subject to review. It is not given for life and it is means tested, whereas this medical card is not means tested. It is not and will not be subject to review and it is available for life. So, there is a clear distinction between what people class as the ordinary medical card and this enhanced medical card that is being offered. I am sure the Deputy is aware, as most people around this table would be aware, that there is a frequent review of the medical card system. I know that is very difficult for people in receipt of it. We know it is very challenging and it is an issue that crops up time and again in our offices. I want to be very clear; there is no review here. It will not be means tested and it is for life. That is the clearest distinction between the two types of medical card.

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to reiterate today one of the asks that was made of the committee.

I note that it was somewhat referenced in the Minister's opening statement. I refer to GDPR and freedom of information. Survivors are very conscious of the fact that these are very sensitive records, but also that they are very important records for future use either by researchers or academics. It is important that GDPR and the right to freedom of information should be acknowledged and included.

One of the other issues that was raised in this regard is that the survivors want to feel that their lived experiences are not simply going to be put away behind a locked door, but that the records will be available in an appropriate form in the future.

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the work that was done by the committee members during the pre-legislative scrutiny stage. Data and GDPR were raised by the committee and I want to be very clear that we strengthened the Bill as a consequence of that. Freedom of information and GDPR do apply. The records will still be in existence. I want to be clear about this. As I outlined in my speech, there is no testimony from survivors involved in any of the material or no life experiences shared by them. What we have is the day-to-day running of the Caranua scheme, which deals with invoices and applications for financial support. It is a different type of material that is available. Nonetheless, it still comes in under GDPR and freedom of information. I want to be clear that it is not any sensitive or personal data or testimony that is held.

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to make one more comment. It relates to the amendment to Schedule 1 to the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Act 2009. One of the concerns outlined to the committee by the survivors was fear of their reinstitutionalisation and the need for adequate home care packages and housing adaptations to ensure that survivors can live for as long as possible within their own home before the only option presented to them is to go into a nursing home. We can all appreciate that, given their history and what they went through, and that it presents challenges to them that many of the rest of us will never have.

Going back to the very first comment I made about the test for meeting the needs of the survivors in terms of adaptation grants and nursing homes, I do not think the amount provided in this Bill reaches that threshold.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to speak in response to the comments the Minister made on GDPR, freedom of information and applications to Caranua. She outlined in her opening statement that day-to-day administrative records and records relating to applications made by survivors are included. Would applications made by survivors not include the reasons they need assistance? Would it not be included in the material the Minister talks about that would not be made publicly available?

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

By and large, it might refer to a requirement for whatever needs to be done in a person's house. It is strictly to do with supports that might be required for housing, for example. There are no personal testimonies about experience in industrial schools or wherever else. It is my clear understanding that it is simply to do with records, whether it is invoices or applications for materials for the home or whatever the case might be.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There will be nothing outlining personal reasons the assistance is required.

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, there is no personal testimony there at all.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So the fact that people are survivors is what entitles them to apply for the assistance and they do not have to justify the application any further.

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no justification sought, as it were.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay.

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to inform the committee of a minor technical amendment that is currently being finalised that I intend to introduce on Report Stage. This is an amendment to section 4(1)(d), which currently provides for the provision of a home help service following an assessment of need made by a registered medical practitioner or a registered nurse. The HSE has informed the Department that in the context of ongoing work by the Department of Health to update the legislative framework for home support providers, clients may be referred to such services by a range of healthcare professionals, for example, the assessment could be signed off by an occupational therapist, a social care worker or other person of that nature. It is intended that we would reflect that in the Bill.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It makes for a smoother process for the people involved.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With regard to section 4, which has been slightly discussed already, residents feel they should be granted the Health (Amendment) Act, HAA, card rather than the enhanced medical card. That request makes sense. Mr. Justice Quirke did recommend the HAA card for Magdalen survivors but they never received them. The enhanced medical card does not provide survivors with a dedicated liaison officer who has received trauma-informed practice training and is familiar with the needs of individual survivors, as is the case with the HAA card. It is important to state that. Given the lifelong mental and physical challenges suffered by survivors, they need the HAA card to be able to access the supports they require. The enhanced medical card does not include those supports.

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand the point about the medical card outlined by the Teachta, but another proposal was made at the committee, which was about giving additional weighting when it comes to social housing lists. There is a HMD form – I always call it HDMI – for the social housing waiting list that takes people's medical needs into account as well. Could something like that be brought in for the waiting list for social housing? Has the Minister considered that as part of the Bill?

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With regard to the HAA, there is an acknowledgement that it was awarded for a very specific case of life-threatening illness. I have already outlined that the enhanced medical card that is being awarded is for life. It is not means-tested and it is not subject to review. Deputy Pringle referred to the support staff having trauma-informed training. There is a very clear outline and commitment that such training would be provided to the service providers. We have engaged with Sage Advocacy and we provided supports to it so that it, in turn, supports survivors to navigate the system. Deputy Farrell raised the issue of housing supports. Whether it is housing or health supports, the advice given by the service is very practical. The service is already on the ground and it is up and running to specifically support the work of advocating and, where necessary, going with the survivor to access whatever supports are required.

On Deputy Farrell's point about social housing, she is correct. Nobody knows better than the Deputy and the other representatives present the specific priority that is given to those who are particularly vulnerable, whether from a disability point of view or for health reasons, by the housing forum. That approach exists also for survivors. I again refer to the work of Sage in supporting survivors to access the services and to make their case. Sage is actively on the ground and working with those who need access to housing through access to increased HAP provision or in making a housing application. Sage can make the case that certain individuals might have a particular urgency due to vulnerability because of disability or health requirements.

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My question was a bit different from that. A lot of our councils are understaffed and the staff there and in social work teams are under huge pressure, especially with the housing crisis. This is not specifically about having someone to support an individual, although that is extremely important and I do not want to take away from it.

It is more about the additional weighting. In Galway, which is where I know best, we have two councils, namely, the city council and county council, but people often come in who have been five years on the list. At the moment, people need to have been about 11 years on the list. They fill out a HMD form and two healthcare professionals have to sign it. That just gives a different type of weighting for when they are considered. Having that additional weighting for a social welfare application is the theory behind it.

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All housing applications are adjudicated on the basis of need. In the interests of that underlying and guiding principle, houses are allocated on the basis of need, but accommodation is always given to those with a specific need, whether a vulnerability, disability, health ailment or whatever. That continues here. If one person's need is greater than another's, housing will be allocated on that basis. I hear what the Deputy is saying. She is looking for a different weight to be given to that, but that would override the basis of need. If the need of a survivor is greater than that of somebody else, the house will be allocated on that basis.

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Every council, as I understand, has a different weighting system. Some are very much based on length and that is the only thing they take into account, but others have other criteria.

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have not come across a situation where medical need or vulnerability was not taken into consideration for a particular type of housing. Where there is a medical need or vulnerability, that is included in the consideration.

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fair, I suppose, but it only works if the person fills out the form. Is that not-----

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. To support and make survivors aware of their entitlements, Sage Advocacy is working to ensure they get the maximum opportunity to present their case, whether a health case, housing case or whatever it is.

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Every week or every day, I, as we all do, advocate for different people but the HMD is what says the person has a medical need and, as a result, it is weighted differently. I might be representing another person who has another issue and trying to put the pressure on but it is only when I have filled out that form that it adds a weight. That is why I feel it is important.

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is done on the basis of need. The adjudication is whether there is a medical need which supersedes the need of a person who does not have a medical need. That is the basis of it.

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the basis of the HMD form but what they are asking for is their own form that shows they have extra weighting.

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Notwithstanding that, the bottom line in terms of allocation of housing is need, whatever that need might be. The weight given will be on the basis of the individual and his or her needs, as opposed to a general weighting. No two individuals who present will have a similar need.

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The problem in Galway, for example, is people need to be 11 years on the waiting list, so they are waiting a long time. While need is taken into account, there are many people with a need. Scarce resources are the issue. We have so little supply.

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is improving day by day. I sat a long number of years on a local authority which was not building any houses. Now we are seeing houses being built by local authorities and things are improving in that respect. The bottom line for local authorities is to provide housing on the basis of need. We cannot take away from that. Every need is adjudicated on an individual basis. We are saying we will support, through Sage Advocacy or whatever, those applications and ensure the maximum opportunity is given to individuals to make the case on their need and how great that need might be.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are going back and forward-----

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will not agree. That is okay.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Pringle.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How long will Sage Advocacy's involvement with the survivors last? Pardon my ignorance, but is that laid down in the Bill? How will that process work?

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the role of Sage Advocacy and the counselling services only available to those based in Ireland, or is it also available in Britain and further overseas given the number of survivors now living outside this State?

The survivors' asks around advocacy and other supports available to them - or that may be made available to them under this Bill - included a one-stop shop because of their profoundly negative experience dealing with State agencies and less than positive interactions with many arms of the government over years. Does the Bill provide the one-stop shop the survivors have asked for and, again, are the services provided by Sage Advocacy available to those outside the State?

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sage Advocacy has engaged with a number of other bodies, including the Christine Buckley Centre, Right of Place Second Chance, Towards Healing, One in Four, Barnardos, Focus Ireland and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, as well as Crosscare and other bodies and agencies across the UK. There is a relationship between them and other agencies in terms of support.

In response to Deputy Pringle, it is a three-year agreement initially and is subject to review.

I am familiar with the one-stop shop because that point was raised with me as well. There was a case made about where that one-stop shop would be located and where the focus might be. The approach taken with Sage Advocacy is that there are advocates in the different regions. Nine additional staff have been taken on by the organisation, focused in a number of regions so as to make themselves readily available, rather than having one central focus point in Dublin or wherever. It was felt there was a better opportunity to engage on the ground where regional personnel were available to do the work. To this point, though it has only been up and running since November, that seems to be working well. That can be reviewed. Rather than centralisation, the regional approach was seen to be more equal and fairly distributed so as to give the maximum opportunity for survivors to engage.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 5 provides for the payment of €3,000 to former residents living abroad. I do not believe that is adequate to meet their needs. A sum of up to €20,000 would be more adequate to meet their needs. Also, people who have received payments under the mother and baby institutions payment scheme should not be excluded from this scheme. That is vital. Will the Minister consider increasing the supports available to people living abroad?

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the €3,000 payment to those overseas, when was the decision made to offer that figure? What factors influenced that figure being arrived at?

Given that the first briefing on the Bill was a considerable time ago, what review has the Department done around the impact of the rising cost of living and inflation on that figure to date? What work does it intend to do from this date to the date of actual payment of that amount to people, again, around the cost of living and the rise in inflation? I understand the Minister has reached out to her British-based counterparts regarding the potential impact of this payment being means-tested. She said she wrote to one of the British ministers. Will she give us an idea of when that correspondence happened?

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The questions on this matter have been raised. That €3,000 payment is quite shocking. It is why all of us are in agreement on that. I am interested in seeing what kind of calculations were made in order to reach that €3,000 figure.

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies. The figure of €3,000 for survivors who are resident outside the State is being made because they will not avail of the health supports and services provided by the HSE. That is the payment that was also proposed and made in respect of mother and baby institutions. It ensures that there is equity or equality between both groups and that they are being treated equally in that respect.

On engagement, the point was made, and it was probably raised at the committee during its pre-legislative scrutiny, that the money would not in any way disadvantage those who are in the UK as regards means-tested supports they might like to access. There has been ongoing engagement on this for some considerable time between officials in my Department, the Irish Embassy, and the equivalent or necessary department in the UK. That engagement has been ongoing for some time to support that work. I recently wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to support the ongoing engagement that has been going on for some time by officials in the Department.

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When was that correspondence?

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The official work between the two departments has been going on for a long number of months, by way of the officials of the Department. In the past number of days, I have also formally written to support their work.

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Through the Chair, could I ask-----

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, I should also acknowledge the Irish Embassy in relation to that work.

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A more technical question has been put to the committee by the survivor groups that appeared before it. If a survivor is currently resident in Manchester, for example, the Bill states that person needs to be there for 12 months. If that person were to receive the €3,000 before the end of this calendar year and then return home to the State in a subsequent year, would he or she then be entitled to the other supports referenced in the Bill?

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is my understanding that €3,000 is the entitlement of a person who draws it down and is in receipt of it when he or she is in the UK. I will not put the Deputy astray, however. I will have to check that to see whether, on a person's return, he or she could start again. I will not lead the Deputy astray on that. I will have to check and revert to her.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister might come back via the clerk on that.

Cathal Crowe (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the €3,000 payment, Bills take quite some time to work their way through. The Minister mentioned the embassy and said there has been a lot of engagement. Was this figure landed on some time ago, prior to the cost-of-living crisis? Whatever cost-of-living crisis we have had, the UK has also had one. Has everything that took place over the past 18 months been factored in or is the €3,000 the final landing point?

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I said, this figure was agreed for the mother and baby home institutional payment scheme. In order that there is equity between the two schemes, that is the figure.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Educational supports should also be made available to family members of people who are impacted. This issue has a generational impact. It is vitally important that family members be included. The Bill should provide for that as well.

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the issue of educational supports for survivors provided for in the Bill, the impact of institutional abuse is much more profound than just the impact on a single individual. We are talking about somebody who may have gone on to become a parent, and who had very poor literacy and numeracy skills, being in the position where he or did not have the skills to support his or her own children going through the education system. People's lack of education or training when they were in one of these institutions then had an impact on their children. It also had an impact on the relationship they had with schools and educational providers because of that poor experience. Does the Minister believe the Bill goes far enough in breaking that intergenerational legacy of abuse? If a survivor draws down on any form of grant or payment for his or her education, will it have an impact on his or her children's entitlement to educational supports?

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. I also appreciate what Deputy Pringle said. On the question of whether the payment will impact on the entitlement of their children - it will not. On the earlier question both Deputies raised around the payment of educational supports, to be clear, it is a payment ranging from €500 to €1,200 for further education. Once somebody has registered for a course, that payment can be for anything from the purchase of a laptop to travel or whatever the case might be. A €2,000 payment is available for higher education up to a maximum of €8,000 over four years.

Caranua is dealing solely with survivors but a previous allocation of funding was made available. The State previously provided education grants to survivors and their families through the education finance board. Approximately €12.7 million was made available from the congregations to specifically support hundreds of survivors and their family members. That allocation was previously made. As Deputies are aware, Caranua strictly deals with survivors themselves. That is why this provision is being made specifically for survivors.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Minister saying that €12.7 million is still available, or that it has been used up and that is the end of it?

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I imagine it closed once the funding was expedited.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Right. That is okay.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On section 21, I believe people should not be precluded from participating in or availing of other schemes if they are available and people might qualify for them. I do not believe that section should be there with regard to disqualifying people from participating in other schemes. Will the Minister comment on that?

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The purpose of section 21 is to amend the mother and baby institutions payment scheme 2023 to take account of the supports to be provided under this Bill. The 2023 Act currently provides that a person who has benefitted from the Magdalen laundries scheme will not be eligible for a health support payment and the proposed amendment will ensure this will also apply to former residents who received a health support payment under section 5 of the Bill. The amendment will also provide that the chief deciding officer of the mother and baby institutions payment scheme can process relevant data for this purpose and can exchange relevant data with the Department of Education.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Deputy Farrell want to come in on any issue?

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, thank you.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and her officials. Does the Minister wish to make any concluding comments?

Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the work of this committee, particularly during pre-legislative scrutiny. I thank the committee and the Chair for their work today.