Kathleen Funchion Challenges 'Concluding Year' in Care Scheme

I know you have finished up by saying that the amendments do not affect anybody that is eligible for the scheme, but I just wanted to ask about the reasoning behind the concluding year, so first of all just to say some of the amendments that are listed here coming back from the Seannet I do support, even though as you know at this stage I do not support this bill because of the fact that it excludes anyone that was resident six months or less, and also that it excludes the boarded out, and I think that is a missed opportunity actually to describe it as a bit of an understatement, it is just totally unfair and totally unequal, but in relation to specifically a concluding year, if that can be amended, if it is found to be wrong, what is sort of the reason for putting in a concluding year, because I mean you will understand that people who are going through this situation or who have been dealing with this for their whole lives in general have been continuously failed by the state, and I understand that we do not have a huge amount of trust, so then when you see a table coming out with this table here with the list of names and the concluding year, I suppose the cynical part of me being very honest goes to what is that trying to prevent from happening, and I do not think really people can be, I think it is understandable why people who have been in the institutions or who have had experience of them or experience of the state's response to them to date would feel like that, so I just wanted to get clarity on that, and I suppose just to again put on the record as it is probably one of the last, actually it is probably the last opportunity that we have to say that I really do feel it is a missed opportunity, I think the board should be included, and I think that the arbitrary six-month cut-off has only kind of served to really kind of create this hierarchy, which is totally and utterly unfair for people to think, well, if I was there for six months, I am somehow entitled to this, and then if you were not for six months or less, you are not entitled to the payment, and I just think it is cruel, actually, that is the word I was looking for, cruel, and I want to just put that on record again, even though I have said it on several occasions at this stage, but just a particular concluding year, I do not really fully grasp why that has to be in there if it turns out that that can be amended. Thank you very much Chair, and thanks to the deputies for their contributions. In terms of the reasoning for the introduction of a concluding year, in terms of the county homes, as I described earlier on, as I know many deputies will know, county homes had multiple purposes from the 1920s, they succeeded the poor houses into the 1930s and the 1940s, and by the 1960s, many of them had ceased, some had not ceased, some developed into nursing homes provided by the state, and some developed into hospitals, into mainstream hospitals, providing a whole range of mainstream services, including maternity services. The scheme here was never intended to provide an ability to apply for a payment for somebody who gave birth in mainstream maternity services in a hospital that was the successor of a county home. As the definitions currently stands, that is a possibility, and that is a possibility that, as I say, was never the intention and is a possibility that we have to mitigate against. That is what we are seeking to do in terms of the definitions and in terms of the addition of the concluding year. In terms of the matter raised by Senator Boyhan, the Commission found that St Kevin's Institution and St Patrick's Navin Road were described as being the same institution within the context of these institutions. St Kevin's Institution became St Kevin's Hospital and it went on to form part of St James's Hospital. This information as regards the co-location has come to light in recent months. That is the reason for the changes being introduced in the Shannon. My officials have met with Senator Boyhan and in keeping with the other amendment that we are bringing forward here in terms of the ability to change a concluding date, and if relevant evidence comes forward, we will continue with our engagements with him in terms of if there is a need to examine that particular date. A lot of work has been done in terms of the dates that have been established for the concluding years, but it is really important. One thing that I requested my officials ensure was inserted in the bill is that we do have a capacity to amend the concluding year, and amend it by statutory instrument, not bringing another bill through the Dáil but do it through statutory instrument, because new information throughout this whole process has come to light when records are found and they identify new elements. A lot of work has been brought out in terms of identifying those concluding dates, but we have put in a mechanism that if new information comes forward, that casts doubt on some of those concluding dates, and bringing a concluding date forward would allow more people to be able to access the scheme. We have that capacity as provided for here. Deputy Sherlock, while recognising what you are raising specifically in terms of the amendment, I think it is important points that you are raising. Thank you for raising them. I think it is important to say this scheme is not operational right now, and this scheme will be operational later on this year. The legislation is not passed. We hope to have this legislation passed today and sent to the President. There will be a detailed public information campaign issued once the legislation is operational. It will be undertaken here in Ireland, it will be undertaken abroad, it will be done in plain English, and there will be a clear indication of how people apply under this particular scheme. There is no requirement to engage a solicitor in order to apply for this particular scheme. We strongly encourage people not to engage with a solicitor in terms of this scheme. I am always cautious in terms of telling people when they should or should not engage in legal, but our advice is that there is no need to do that at this stage. As I said, in advance of the scheme opening, there will be a comprehensive public awareness campaign. We are aware that there is a practice with some legal firms taking place, and we will be communicating with anybody who reaches out to us directly and giving our recommendation that there is no need for engagement. We also have a quarterly bulletin that we provide an update to people who have signed up to this. Many hundreds of survivors and former residents have signed up to this update at the moment, and we will make that clear in that update as well. We will use those mechanisms for communicating with former residents to let people know. As you know, we are also in the process now of appointing a special advocate for survivors of institutional abuse. That person can also take a role in terms of giving advice as to there is no need to engage with legal firms. The legislation makes provision for financial support with legal advice in two situations. If someone needs to sign an affidavit because there are not records available for them in the database that was developed by the Commission. We expect that the very significant majority of people who make an application, their dates of residence in an institution will be available within the database. We say to everybody, it is very unlikely that anyone has their own documents, so the fact that you do not have documents should in no way discount your ability to apply under this particular scheme. If it turns out that there is a gap in information on an individual's particular case, there is the option under the legislation for someone to swear an affidavit. There is financial support provided for the legal process around swearing an affidavit. There is also a provision for some financial support at the end of the process if you seek legal advice before you sign the waiver and accept your payment. Those are the two circumstances within the bill where financial support is provided for anyone seeking legal advice. Our strong view is that there is no requirement to engage with a solicitor in order to access the scheme. We will continue to work to amplify that particular message. Deputy Connolly, you asked in terms of an update on engagement with the religious congregations. Again, that is a negotiation, so I do not think it will serve a negotiation for me to provide a blow-by-blow account update, other than to say I have appointed Sheila Noonan to take a lead role in terms of those negotiations, in terms of those engagements with the religious congregations. In terms of the institutional burials bill, as you said, Daniel MacSweeney has now been appointed to head up the agency that will undertake the intervention in Toome. I know over recent weeks since his appointment he has been engaging with families, with survivors, with former residents in the Toome area. We made a decision that he would undertake that engagement before undertaking any sort of public engagement. I understand that in the next number of weeks he probably will undertake a wider public engagement in terms of an updating as to where that particular process is. Just in terms of issues related to infant remains and other sites, in the last number of weeks I gave approval for a small grant for a survivor group in Shan Ross to undertake ground truthing work outside of the identified infant cemetery in Shan Ross. They have concerns that the area enclosed and the actual site of infant burials may be wider there. So after some engagement with that organisation there, and I visited Shan Ross last summer, we are providing this support to them in terms of a piece of work that they are doing there. In terms of records, under the birth information and tracing legislation, over 9,000 people now have applied for their records from institutions and over 5,000 people have received their records. The two key institutions, the Adoption Authority of Ireland and Tusla are undertaking work to provide replies to all other applicants under the scheme. In that legislation, we introduced that it is an offence to destroy records, and that offence is now on the statute book. Prior to the commission reporting, my department took on an archivist to work to make public documents related to the institutions that are held by other bodies. Particularly for the county homes, a large number of documents would be held by the HSE. There is an archivist working in my department to ensure that these can be transferred from the HSE under the normal provisions of the records act. If you want, Deputy, I can write to you separately if you want a more detailed update on that particular piece of work. I think the Sean McDermott Street plan is very important. It is one that was raised with me very briefly after I became Minister in terms of something that many people in this area saw as important, a site where records can be stored, records can be maintained, records can be accessed by individual record holders and to an extent by historians as well, as is appropriate under a legislative framework. It will be run by the National Archives and in conjunction with the National Museum. We have the capacity to have a record centre but also memorial, a site of conscience as well. It also brings some benefit to the North Inner City in terms of some social housing and in terms of children's services there as well. I think that is a hugely important step forward. Deputy Connolly, I have on three occasions now answered the issue in respect of the report on illegal birth registrations in this House. I respectfully say I have. You have raised it on many times and I have always given the reason. I thought you raised two issues. One is that the lady, woman, asked for her name to be removed and the other issue was in relation to discussing it in the Dáil. She did ask her, and I have confirmed this to you. With respect now I have at least twice, but I will do it again. She did ask for her name to be removed and we made the determination that this was a piece of work that she had taken on on behalf of the Government. And a piece of work that had been done and we believe that it should be published with her name. That was the situation there. We have discussed that report. I am not sure if it was the subject of a full set of statements, but I have spoken about the report. And there were very significant follow-ups to that report in terms of the work that the former Special Rapporteur Conor O'Mahony did. The central recommendation was that nothing more could be done in the space of illegal birth registrations. I did not accept that. I asked Professor O'Mahony to do a piece of work. He did a substantial piece of work. And one of the provisions that we put in the information and tracing legislation was to allow TUSLA or the Adoption Authority of Ireland where they identify particular markers. You recall the term markers were used in that report in terms of suspicious entries on a particular file to allow them to investigate further. And that provision is there, and there is a team in TUSLA undertaking further work in that area. Thank you, Chair. Thanks. I just want to very briefly come back in just to make one or two points that I did not get to say. But can I just ask, firstly, on a point of order, is there a vote on the overall bill at this point? There can still be a vote on the overall bill. Am I right on that? We are at amendments date, I think. I know, but once we go through the amendments, is there then a question that the bill will now be passed? I do not think so, Deputy. I just want to check that. I think it is amendments as the bill has arrived from the Shannon. Maybe yes or no on amendments. It has changed. How did you bring it back to us and we know how to loan it? It is the procedure. I think that is the procedure, but I was not sure, so I just wanted to check. There are changes that the Shannon have agreed to. This House has asked to vote yea or nay on each of those changes, not on the whole thing, is my understanding. I was not sure, but I thought that was the case that I wanted to check. For me, it is important that I put on record that if there was a vote, because sometimes the procedure, as even some of us in here still get confused by it. Certainly, if you are watching and you have been following this debate, the procedure may be slightly confusing. To put on record for myself, if there was a vote on the overall bill, we would be opposing it for the reasons that we had set out before. I just want to finally say that in the last stall there were a number of debates on this and into this stall. Just in my time, that is seven years. That is obviously a very short amount of time compared to some people and what they have been living for. I just want to say to all of the thousands of survivors that I have come across both here in Ireland and throughout the world. I want to thank them for their courage, for their bravery, for sharing their stories. I have always, always been struck by every single time we speak about this, how somebody new comes forward to me to tell me their story. I always feel like that is such a personal thing and such a difficult thing for somebody to do. I just want them to know that that was not taken for granted, certainly by me and I know by other deputies on the opposition benches as well. I want to let them know that their contribution behind the scenes has been invaluable, their fight to be heard was dignified and honourable. I want to reassure them that I heard you, I listened to you and from the bottom of my heart I thank you for all of the work that you have done. I am sure they will continue to do because I absolutely would agree with what Deputy Sherlock said or Deputy Connolly that this will be going to the courts. I would imagine it will be tested there and I imagine that the fight will continue. But just to acknowledge their role and also I suppose to put it on record if there is not an overall vote that if there was we would be opposing it. Thank you. Channel 2 . Thank you, Channel 2 . . . . . . . . . . . .