Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 Apr 2024

Vol. 1053 No. 2

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

Minister for Education (Deputy Norma Foley)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Today I bring the Supports for Survivors of Residential Institutional Abuse Bill before the House. I am deeply conscious in introducing the Bill of the enormous trauma that has been endured by all survivors of abuse, and I know that nothing we do now can ever truly undo the hurt which has been caused. Nearly 25 years ago, on 11 May 1999, the then Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, apologised on behalf of the State to the victims of childhood abuse. This apology arose from the important recognition of the extent and effect of childhood abuse which had taken place in institutions which were supervised and regulated by the State.

How a society treats children tells us so much about that society. All children deserve the utmost in care, attention and love. For too many children, this obligation was not honoured. The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse shone light onto dark parts of Irish history. I know that nothing can ever be said or done to unravel the pain and suffering that ensued from these abuses, and I acknowledge that today.

In the course of progressing this Bill and other matters, I have met and engaged with survivors of abuse in industrial schools on a number of occasions to hear directly from them. I have been and remain deeply moved by the powerful testimony survivors shared with me. I once again thank all survivors and the members of the consultative forum for their engagement, their commitment and the insights they shared in participating in its work.

The final report of the commission, known as the Ryan report, was published in 2009 and revealed that shocking levels of physical and emotional abuse were endemic in the institutions concerned, while sexual abuse also occurred in many institutions, particularly institutions for boys.

In parallel with the work of the commission, the Residential Institutions Redress Board was established in 2002 to make fair and reasonable awards of redress to those who, as children, were abused while resident in industrial schools, reformatories and other institutions subject to State regulation or inspection. Ultimately, approximately 15,600 survivors received awards of redress from the redress board, totalling almost €1 billion.

In 2006, the Education Finance Board was established on a statutory basis to provide grants to survivors and their relatives to assist them in engaging in education. It was allocated funding of €12.7 million provided by the relevant religious congregations under the 2002 indemnity agreement and was formally dissolved in 2013.

Similarly, funding of over €110 million, which was provided by the congregations following the publication of the Ryan report in 2009, was assigned to the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Board, or Caranua, which was established in 2013 to provide funding supports to survivors in respect of approved services such as health, education and housing. Overall, Caranua provided funding supports totalling almost €98 million to more than 6,000 eligible survivors, with each applicant receiving an average of over €15,000 in supports. In total, to date, these initiatives have involved expenditure of approximately €1.5 billion, including direct redress payments and other supports for survivors amounting to approximately €1.1 billion.

I also note that the national counselling service was established in 2000 as a free nationwide service providing counselling and psychotherapy services to survivors of abuse in residential institutions. In addition, the Department of Education has, since 2002, funded the Origins tracing service for individuals who spent all or part of their childhood in an Irish industrial school and who are interested in tracing information about their parents, siblings or other relatives. The service, which is operated by Barnardos, is available free of charge to survivors living in Ireland and abroad.

As Deputies will be aware, 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 relating to health, education, advocacy and trauma-informed practice.

This Bill has two main purposes: to enable the delivery of these 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. This marks a new phase of the State providing ongoing supports to survivors and builds on the response to this issue to date. It is important that the views of survivors of institutional abuse are heard when considering future supports and services to meet their needs. For that reason, the Department of Education engaged in a structured process of consultation with survivors and survivor groups over a number of years. This process began with the engagement by the Department of professionally qualified facilitators to undertake a series of consultations with survivors on the themes and issues of most concern to them. The facilitators engaged with more than 100 people and held over 30 meetings. These meetings enabled survivors to reflect on their experiences and the State's response to the issue of institutional abuse and to make any recommendations they wished to make.

This first phase of the process resulted in the submission to the Department of a report entitled Consultations with Survivors of Institutional Abuse on Themes and Issues to be addressed by a Survivor Led Consultation Group. The report identified a number of priority issues for survivors, including the health needs of an ageing population and the need to make services easier to access. Phase 2 of the process involved the establishment in 2020 of a survivor-led consultative forum to further consider the themes and issues identified. This was again supported by the facilitators engaged by the Department of Education.

The development of the new package of supports was informed by consideration of the reports of the consultative forum, along with other relevant reports and submissions, including the Facing the Future Together report, which was produced by the Christine Buckley Centre, Right of Place Second Chance, Barnardos and One in Four, together with other relevant stakeholders. These reports provide a clear insight into the areas where survivors feel that supports are required into the future. Although a wide range of possible supports were considered, the balanced and proportionate package of supports which has been approved by the Government will address many of the key issues identified.

Following the publication of the general scheme of this Bill last September, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education, Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science conducted pre-legislative scrutiny. I am grateful to the Chair, Deputy Kehoe, and other members of the committee for their examination of the legislative proposals.

I will now outline the key parts of the Bill, as initiated. Part 1 provides for a number of preliminary matters, including commencement, the payment of expenses arising from the administration of the Bill and definitions. A key definition is that of a "former resident" who will be eligible for the supports provided under the Bill. This is defined by reference to the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Act 2012, which established Caranua, and essentially provides that a "former resident" is a person who received an award of redress from the Residential Institutions Redress Board or a similar court award or settlement. This is the same group of people who were eligible to apply for supports from Caranua. It is estimated that this currently comprises approximately 10,000 individuals, of whom some two thirds are resident in the State.

Part 2 provides for the delivery of health and education supports to survivors. Section 4 provides for the delivery of an enhanced package of health supports and services to former residents, often referred to as an "enhanced medical card", which will allow survivors access to GP services, medications, home nursing and home helps, dental, ophthalmic and aural services, counselling, chiropody or podiatry, and physiotherapy.

This is the same package of supports which has been provided to survivors of the Magdalen laundries under the Magdalen laundry scheme and is being provided to former residents of mother and baby and county home institutions under the mother and baby institutions payment scheme.

Section 4 also provides a legal basis for the transfer and processing of relevant data by the Department and the Health Service Executive to enable the delivery of these supports. It also requires that such processing is subject to suitable and specific measures to safeguard the rights of data subjects. In recognition of the fact that approximately one third of survivors of abuse in residential institutions live outside of the State, section 5 provides for the making of a once-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. This is the same approach as that taken in the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Act 2023. It also provides that payment will not be made to persons who have benefited from the Magdalen laundry scheme or to persons who receive a similar payment under the mother and baby institutions payment scheme. As with section 4, section 5 also provides a legal basis for the transfer and processing of relevant data to support this approach.

Section 6 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. Subject to the passage of the Bill, the Department will establish a new scheme involving the payment of cash grants ranging from €500 to €2,000 to survivors who are engaging in, or who wish to continue to engage in, further and higher education. This scheme will also ensure that survivors are not required to pay the student contribution charge where this would otherwise apply. These grants will be in addition to the wide range of enhanced supports in place for those seeking to engage in further and higher education, including the free fees initiative, the SUSI student grant scheme and the back to education allowance, as well as initiatives such as Springboard.

Part 3 contains a number of standard provisions relating to the dissolution of Caranua. As I outlined, Caranua’s specific 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, which was provided by the relevant congregations following the publication of the Ryan report in 2009. As the funding available to it 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. Part 3 provides for the appointment by the Minister of a dissolution day, upon which Caranua will be dissolved for the transfer of relevant functions to the Minister for the transfer of liability for loss, property, rights and liabilities, for the preparation by the Minister of Caranua’s final accounts and final annual report and for the closure of the investment account which holds what remains of the statutory fund.

I note in particular that section 14 provides for the transfer of Caranua’s records to the Minister and for the processing of that data for certain specified purposes. It is important to note that the records held by Caranua do not include detailed testimony or accounts of survivors’ experience of abuse in residential institutions of the type held by the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse or the Residential Institutions Redress Board. The records relate solely to Caranua’s role of disbursing funding supports 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, and survivors will continue to be entitled to exercise their GDPR and FOI rights, including seeking a copy of their data. The Department of Education has engaged closely with both the Office of the Attorney General and the Data Protection Commission in relation to provisions relating to the transfer and processing of data under the Act. Appropriate and suitable safeguards will be put in place, in consultation with the Data Protection Commission, where necessary, to ensure that all such data is held confidentially and in compliance with all data protection requirements.

Section 17 provides for the utilisation of any funds transferred to the Minister upon Caranua’s dissolution and provides that these funds will be used only for purposes benefitting former residents. However, it should be noted that very limited funding remains available to Caranua at this time.

Part 4 contains a number of miscellaneous provisions. Section 18 provides for the transfer of certain data to the Minister by the Residential Institutions Redress Board, the data concerned being the name, address and date of birth of each individual who received an award of redress from the board, and for the processing of that data where necessary and proportionate to confirm the eligibility of a person for the ongoing supports provided for under the Bill.

Section 19 provides for the making of relevant regulations by the Minister, while section 20 provides for the amendment of the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Act 2009 to ensure that redress payments made by the Residential Institutions Redress Board are no longer taken into account when making financial assessments under the fair deal scheme.

Section 21 provides for the amendment of the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Act 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 laundry scheme will not be eligible for a health support payment under the Act. The proposed amendment will ensure that this will also apply to a former resident who receives a health support payment under section 5 of the Bill.

As already noted, the Government also approved the delivery of initiatives relating 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. With regard to advocacy, the consultative forum’s report highlighted the particular challenges that survivors face in navigating access to public services. The Department of Education has therefore entered into a grant funding arrangement with Sage Advocacy, an independent advocacy organisation with a strong track record in providing advocacy supports to older people, vulnerable adults and healthcare patients, to develop information, support and advocacy services to assist individual survivors in engaging with and accessing relevant services and supports. As part of this arrangement, Sage Advocacy is required to develop and implement a communications 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 Advocacy has already begun to roll out this service and is engaging with survivors and survivor groups to promote awareness of its availability.

In relation to trauma-informed practice, the extent to which survivors continue to live with the trauma of the past has also been highlighted and 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 and public service. It is intended to develop and roll out this initiative before the end of this year.

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

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I want to acknowledge and be associated with the sentiments expressed by the Minister about the level of abuse and the impact of that abuse, not only on the survivors at the time but in the decades that have passed since. Some of them still carry very deep scars today.

When the Residential Institutions Redress Board was established the scheme was limited to 139 institutions. We know that exclusion caused further trauma and distress to some of the survivors. I know, for example, that people who were in Westbank Orphanage have been in contact with my colleagues, as have others, to express their concerns about this scheme and their also being excluded from it. To qualify for Caranua when it was established, people had to have been covered by the residential institutions redress scheme.

I thank and honour those who came before the committee during pre-legislative scrutiny. They gave freely of their time. Some travelled significant distances to be with us to discuss a topic that was not easy for them to discuss, and never will be, but which is very important to us as a State. The committee heard from a representative of One in four who said survivors of abuse in institutional care were abysmally failed by the Irish State in their early years. It is now incumbent on us as a society to ensure that, as they age, the survivors are afforded the highest quality, appropriate services they so richly deserve. Does the Bill before us deliver the dignity, respect and support those survivors need? They were not just victims of institutional abuse, cruelty and neglect.

They were also neglected by the State. Some of them speak of very negative experiences of dealing with other State redress schemes since then, that have left a deep sense of distrust in the State. These are people who have been selfless, resilient and dignified in their perseverance and they have been explicit in their requests. Their requests were explicit when we carried out pre-legislative scrutiny.

The committee recommended a significant number of areas to be further considered but I will only speak about a few of them. One of the recommendations is that the legislation should ensure all survivors of the residential institutions covered by the Bill have equal access as outlined therein. A representative of the Christine Buckley Centre stated clearly that we have to be mindful not to exclude people who did not apply for redress. They discovered after the redress closing date that many survivors thought redress was only to do with sexual abuse and not emotional or physical abuse. Will the Minister review that part of the Bill?

Many survivors also believe the proposed one-off payment of €3,000 is simply not enough. Sinn Féin strongly supports examining whether this payment should be increased, given the substantial rise in the cost of living we have all seen in the recent past. The value of the amount will be reduced due to inflation.

One of the significant issues that was raised at those meetings was the potential impact redress may have for those who live in the UK. We know approximately 30% of those eligible live in the UK and if they happen to be on means-tested payments, this redress scheme payment may be taken into account and reduce their entitlements. That represents a real barrier. A representative of the Minister's Department said that this matter is on the radar. Will she provide an update on what engagement has taken place to ensure this does not happen?

Survivors have asked that the professional advocacy service be set up as a statutory body and that it would essentially be a one-stop shop for all potential supports that are available to them. They have asked for a clear pathway to access medical, housing, financial and other supports and it is incumbent on us to ensure we do all we can to make that happen. That includes advertising in areas that are most used by survivors who are hard to reach. Whatever that looks like, it must take different forms. One contributor mentioned the possibility of GP surgeries being a way to reach those who do not get their news from local newspapers or online.

Another serious request of survivors is that the high-level interdepartmental group be reconvened by the Department of Education as an urgent priority to co-ordinate, not only the delivery of the supports outlined in the Bill, but to ensure there is full implementation of the Bill. This is a very important step to take. We are talking about people who have lived with trauma, experienced abuse and at this stage are quite elderly. They deserve our support. They have asked for it and have engaged with us in a manner that is very open and that needs to be recognised. We cannot erase the mark of distrust in the State I spoke of. We cannot turn back the clock or undo the abuse and pain these people suffered, but we can ensure at this point we do our very best to deliver what this Bill sets out in the best possible way.

It is incumbent on the Minister to look at the requests made by survivors at the committee. There are quite a number of them and they are all based on their lived experiences and what they see as necessary at this point in time, regardless of what may have come before.

Will he please review who is eligible to apply to the scheme? It has been raised, not only at the committee, but also by other survivors who have been in contact. They wanted it to be raised and I am happy to do so because it is important their voices are heard. They are the ones who lived through this and experienced it. At this point if their voices are not heard, it will further compound the pain and trauma they have experienced and that is grossly unfair.

I have a few minutes left, which, with the discretion of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I will use to address to address another issue. While addressing a serious issue in my constituency in the Dáil the week before last, namely the Mullingar hospital paediatric service, I said, based on incorrect information provided to me, that a temporary replacement nurse did not have the adequate training to provide the service. I am happy to correct the record. I fully acknowledge this individual does have the necessary training. I never intended for my remarks to be taken as a slight on anyone; rather I was highlighting a serious issue in a vital service in Mullingar hospital. It is up to me to own that and I intend to do so.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

The scourge of institutional abuse is a stain on our collective history. As former Bethany Home resident, Patrick Anderson McQuoid quoted in The Journal yesterday said, it is the "shame" of Ireland. It is also shameful that Patrick will be denied redress by the Minister. Under the auspices of the State, thousands endured pain, abuse, trauma and neglect. This suffering produced a lasting impact, not only on their lives, but also on the lives of those close to them. There is no doubt that survivors deserve redress and supports to counter the profound detrimental impact residential institutional abuse had on them. Despite the lip service paid by the Government, survivors have waited too long for the recognition and justice that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael denied them for decades. Under the Bill before the Dáil, many will be forced to continue to wait.

Survivors have been explicit in their requests. They have campaigned for decades to break the silence. This Bill does not go far enough. Many key requests of survivors have not been included. Just four of the committee's 29 recommendations on redress have been included in the Bill. Not only are definitive timelines for service provision absent, for example, but provisions that managed to make it into the Bill are far from exhaustive; rather they are narrow and partial and for many survivors, they represent nothing more than a superficial exercise. What is worse, thousands of survivors of institutional abuse continue to be excluded from the Government's totally inadequate attempt at redress. They have been overlooked and ignored, despite promises by the Government that it would finally make things rights. Many feel traumatised all over again. This indefensible scandal is simply not good enough.

In preparing the Bill, the Government carried out a process of consultation with survivors and survivor-led groups over a number of years, including a survivor-led independently facilitated consultative forum. Despite this, it has ignored them extensively in this Bill. A member of the forum, Sidney Herdman, formerly of the Westbank Orphanage, is even being denied redress by the Minister. This Bill is a tool to hide the fact that the views of survivors are being ignored yet again. Why does the Government continue to ignore their suffering? Victims who placed their trust in a legislative process have been let down yet again. Let us consider the former residents of the Westbank Orphanage in Greystones, County Wicklow. This Bill constitutes another betrayal. The independent mother and baby home commission of inquiry recommended twice that the orphanage be included in the residential institutions redress board scheme similar to Artane Industrial School for Senior Boys, St. Joseph’s Industrial School for Senior Boys in Letterfrack, St. Vincent’s Industrial School in Goldenbridge, Smyly homes and other notorious institutions. What is the Government prepared to do for these sexually, physically and emotionally abused former child residents? Are they being left behind primarily because a Protestant-run institution has to jump through more hoops to be accepted as a State responsibility? When will the Government be prepared to treat all survivors equally? This needs to happen.

Deputy Réada Cronin

Another week and another group of wronged people are seeking justice from the State. We seem to be making a habit of it.

It is almost part of the State's culture, one of a lesser-loved tradition we have, except today there is no fanfare, there are no pen portraits to help us to identify with the victims and there is no media live-tweeting and hanging on to every word, eager to be the first to report it to the masses. Today, there are just the victims and survivors listening in so, in practice, we have to ensure that what they see is not more stalling or waiting.

The suffering and trauma of survivors was not confined to their time in residence, with "residence" being such a gentle, refined and reassuring word for what they experienced as institutionalisation, incarceration and, frequently, all-out savagery, nor was their suffering and trauma confined to their lives. It is fair to say that in all probability every family where someone was deposited in a residential institution there is trauma today of one kind or another. It may be hidden, it may be manifest or have been attended to by earlier generations but it is certainly there in the psychological inheritance. I think of the people who took to the drink, took to the bed or were what was known to be "suffering with their nerves", which was the phrase I remember hearing whispered when I was growing up. What was their history? What happened in their families? What burden were they carrying from a parent or grandparent? We have to be very clear every time we speak on this issue that the sheer extent of the trauma, often intergenerational, is acknowledged and not just the intensity but the length of that trauma. We must acknowledge trauma's ability to survive the survivors and pass on to new generations.

This is why the actual survivors must have access to specialist trauma-informed therapy and psychotherapy- the real deal. The idea that a few sessions of counselling, God help us, might be sufficient would add insult to the grievous previous injury. Counselling has its place for sure but the dismantling of a life, the pulverisation of spirit and the bruising of the soul requires psychotherapy, which is, in its definition, attending to and treating their spirit and their soul. It is not every day we get to address such issues in legislation. They are the things that go to the very essence of what it means to be a human and to exist. When we do, we have to get it right in as far as we are able to. If we do not, we compound the wrong. We pass it on to our children and to their children and the next generation of politicians to address this Dáil some day.

Our survivors must have access to specialist therapy and not financial or geographical ifs or buts. I will whizz through part of a wish list that is a needs-list for survivors. Survivors need a professional advocacy service; access to the contributory State pension and priority for social housing. The once-off payment of €3,000 for former residents living overseas, particularly in Britain, is insufficient and as Teachta Clarke has outlined, could affect any means-tested income. Not so long ago we were reminded that €3,000 was only lunch money to the big beasts of RTÉ, yet it is proposed as a decent settlement for survivors. Any payment must be index-linked to the cost of living and there must be additional payments to survivors who have complex health needs. All of this must be done on a case-by-case basis because there is no such thing as a generic survivor. Everyone survives differently, if they survive at all, which is why we must also in our work address those who did not survive or who were lost at the time or lost later. Their experience must not be forgotten and their experience must never be whitewashed. When it comes to treating our survivors as they should be treated, we have a way to go with this Bill just as we have a way to go as a society, State and nation.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

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.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Gabhaim buíochas. Ní raibh ach cúpla nóiméad agam ar an gceist seo. Is ceist ríthábhachtach í agus tá sé go maith go bhfuilimid ar ais ag déileáil léi. Is trua, ámh, nach bhfuil an Bille seo chomh foirfe is ar chóir dó a bheith agus nach bhfuil sé ag admháil na bhfadhbanna bunúsacha atá ann fós. In ainneoin an mhéid atá déanta go dtí seo, níl go leor déanta.

We are dealing with a very complex issue, but we have come a long way from when the first attempts were made by the State to atone for its part in the abuse, brutalisation and indenture of young boys and girls in institutions. We have a long way to go yet, and I am a firm believer that we should not close the doors on those who have not been captured. It is a pity there does not seem to be any move in this Bill to capture those who the vast majority of us acknowledge should have been captured in the first place.

It has always been bizarre to me that a sectarian approach has been taken by the State in respect of Church of Ireland institutions. It is bonkers. Derek Linster, one of those who campaigned on and highlighted this issue, passed away two years ago, but the campaign has not ended. We need to continue to examine not just Bethany Home and the Westbank Orphanage, but also other institutions and others who have fallen through the cracks of redress schemes. There are those who could never bring themselves to engage with any institutions because they were so broken.

I have met them in my office and have tried to help some of them. Some were, in their eyes, let down by Caranua. Others were let down by the early stages of the process. We need to have some mechanism to capture those people and help them along. Many are often of an age where the struggle of their years is affecting them a lot more than they might have in the past. There are a lot of broken people out there who feel let down not just by the State, but by those who were guardians and supposed to be looking after them and instead abused them in many ways, something which has been outlined in the Chamber.

It is right that we are doing this. The figures are minuscule. As a State, we should go back to the institutions which have a lot of money and demand that they continuously pay for the deeds that were carried out under their watch which they facilitated and covered up. They moved people around over the years. Obviously, the State has to play a role for its failures to address this issue when it was first raised. I appeal to the Minister to re-examine the question of the Bethany Home and the Westbank orphanage, in particular, as well as other institutions.

Deputy Gary Gannon

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.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

I thank my colleague Deputy Gannon who has very strongly and adeptly described the flaws and gaps in this legislation, and indeed the trauma still experienced by so many survivors in the State.

I want to talk about another group of men and women who deserve recognition and the support of the State but who have been completely ignored by it to date, namely the survivors of Westbank Orphanage, which operated in Greystones from the 1940s until the early 2000s. Up to 50 children lived there and they ranged from infants of a few months to teenagers. There were no staff and no guarantees of the welfare of children. It was stated by a survivor recently that there was no love there, only beatings. Many were sent to the orphanage from the Bethany Home on Orwell Road, Rathgar, Dublin 6. These children were told their parents did not love them and some were told their parents were dead. Others were told that they had no family left alive, despite that their very siblings were living in Westbank at the same time as them. Yet, others were put up for adoption and illegally adopted by families living abroad.

Children living in Westbank Orphanage were sent to work on farms in the summer. They were beaten with pokers and they describe beatings across the legs with electric flexes and having received injections, although they did not know what these were for. The descriptions of this abuse just go on and on.

Westbank Orphanage was excluded from the initial mother and baby homes redress scheme. However, the second interim report of the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes and Certain Related Matters, published in 2016, states there is an argument that the orphanage should have been included in the residential institutions redress scheme.

There are recommendations in the final report of the Oireachtas joint committee, which states the institution payments scheme should be amended. Recommendation 21 explicitly states: "There may be other institutions not investigated by the Commission which were unfairly excluded from the scheme, for example, Westbank, to which attention was drawn in the 2nd Interim Report."

Not only did these children who are now adults have to suffer that trauma but now the State is continuing to retraumatise them by ignoring them and not including them in any of the schemes or supports to which others are entitled. There is an opportunity to rectify that. I would ask, even through this Bill, to acknowledge those individuals and give them that assurance that they are being seen and heard because they really have not been to date. They say that justice delayed is justice denied but we have a chance here to right this wrong and to recognise the suffering of children and the immense impact this has had on them throughout their lives. I am hoping to bring forward an amendment to seek support for the survivors of Westbank in this Bill. I ask the Minister and Government to support that call.

Debate adjourned.