Gerard P. Craughwell backs full-time advocate for survivors

I too want to support Senator Stevenson's amendment, but I also have a difficulty the way we use the possible charge on the Exchequer in saying that certain amendments have been rejected. There is no absolute charge on the executive by having an advocate in place. The people we're talking about, Minister, as my colleague Senator Boyden has just pointed out, most of them now are people in their 60s. Most of them contributed to this state with their labour and got nothing in return. If somebody has to pay for advocacy, it shouldn't be the state in the first instance, it should be those who caused them to be in the position they're in. And I just think it's wrong to reject the amendment that was put down by my colleague, Senator Boyden. I do think there needs to be a full-time advocate in place. I think those that suffered in these organisations and these institutions need to have a central place they can go to. And the former councillor Farrell, his organisation is one. But I do think there needs to be an office, a one-stop shop where you can go to and ensure that everything you're entitled to, you get. Because too often we see well-meaning legislation brought in by the state, but sometimes people just don't know how to access it. So I would support the notion that we should have an advocate. Thank you, Lasker. Maybe I should have at the outset started just by acknowledging those who are in the gallery as well here and thank them for being here. To speak to Amendment 6, to speak to the Senator's amendment, what has been asked of here is that there would be professional support provided for victims and survivors. Counselling supports are currently provided through a scheme that was established back in 2000. And this was following the Taoiseach's apology in 1999. It's provided through the National Counselling Service, through the HSE. From the very outset, this is something that has been made available to all adults in Ireland who experienced childhood physical, emotional, sexual abuse or neglect in any setting. So that includes industrial, but also community or familial as well. Those who are experienced in particular or have experienced abuse are prioritised through that system. You might say, if it's here already, why are we putting it in this bill? By putting this specifically in the bill, it means that there is a statutory right. So if for whatever reason, the HSE says we don't have the money or the funding is reducing, this bill clearly states that funding must be provided because there is a statutory right to any victim of abuse set out in the institutions that are mentioned, that they would receive that counselling and that they would receive that support. The HSE really, in terms of the expertise and knowledge, the HSE is required to ensure that any person working for them, that their expertise is there, that they have experience, that they're qualified working with various different types of trauma. And I know from my previous role in justice, particularly in the role out of the zero tolerance strategy around domestic and sexual violence, one of the key elements of that strategy, it's training, it's upskilling and it's making sure we have as many therapists and many professionals who are up to skill and have the prerequisite needs when it comes to delivering these types of services and supports. I know there's more work that we need to do to make sure that we have as many professionals as possible, but that strategy is a whole of government strategy and very much is being progressed by the HSE and the Department of Health as well. So it's on that basis for this amendment that I cannot accept it because those supports are there. What we're doing actually in the bill is putting those supports on a statutory footing. So I think it's not that we're not accepting what's in it, it's already in the bill that we do provide these supports. Secondly, if I could just speak to Victor Boyan's point, and I know the amendment was ruled out of order, and as you said yourself, in terms of the special advocate, this is somebody who was appointed through the Department of Children, so any changes to their structure or the statute itself would have to be through the Department of Children. But what I can commit to, to your point, we don't work in a vacuum, we work collectively together, that I will commit to engaging with my colleague Minister Norma Foley, the Minister for Children, on the points that you have raised, to see whether or not there was more we need to do in terms of the special advocate, in terms of resources, but also to see how that fits with the work of SAGE Advocacy. They have, over the last 18 months in particular, enhanced their expertise, their staff and their outreach when it comes to, in particular, supporting and providing advocacy for victims of sexual abuse, victims of abuse in institutions and schools and other areas as well. So how would we make sure that any advocate's role supports and works in collaboration with what is already there? But I'm absolutely committed to working with my colleague, the Minister for Children, in that regard, and to relaying anything that we discuss here today, in terms of the advocate, but to acknowledge as well the huge work that she has done, but also the work that SAGE is doing to work with. And I'm sure there's more that we can do, and I'm happy to support them in that regard. With respect to support for people living outside the state, I just can't understand how we ring-fenced a specific figure. There should be, I mean, as somebody who goes to a couple of consultants every year, 3,000 euros won't bring you very far in this world, so it won't. I think there should be an expense based on returned receipts, that any time they seek medical help, providing it's in accordance with what they went through while they were in institutions, that you should be simply able to send an expense receipt into the state and get fully reimbursed. It's a bit of a buy-off, and a cheap buy-off, at three grand. Let's be honest about it. Three grand wouldn't bring you very far in the health service in this country, so it wouldn't. And I can't see it bringing you very far. My colleague mentioned North America. Three grand would probably get you one consultation there. So, from my point of view, ring-fencing money for people that are outside the state. And as my colleague, Senator Boyan, said, a lot of them that are outside the state were driven outside the state, afraid to come back ever again. So, we owe them a damn sight more than three grand. Senator Boyan. Thank you, Senators. Firstly, in relation to Amendment 15, while I cannot accept the amendment, it is simply on the basis that I can't legislate for what another government does in their jurisdiction. But what I can say is that engagement is already happening between my department's children and our sister departments within the UK and Northern Ireland. Because I think, as most people have referenced, the vast majority of survivors who have moved away, they have moved to the UK or Northern Ireland. The fact that there is a new scheme in Northern Ireland means that they are looking for something similar. So, that they don't have people living in the north who would have been here who may be impacted in the same way. So, as soon as tomorrow, there is a meeting between our governments in the north for the BIDC, the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, and we will be meeting with colleagues. And these can be part of, and will be part of the discussions that they are having. Ultimately, it will, of course, be a decision for the UK and Northern Ireland government to make. But I don't see why we would not reciprocate and make sure that any payments that we are paying out, that there isn't any implications for individuals here and vice versa. So, we will be engaging with them in that regard. But, unfortunately, the amendment is simply because I can't legislate for what another country does. But that engagement is happening and will continue to happen. In terms of the figure, I appreciate senators won't like my answer. And I really do understand that this is very much keeping it in line with what has been provided for other schemes. And making sure that we don't have something different for somebody who may have gone through, albeit in a different setting, but a very similar experience. It will be put in place through the Department of Health. And I think any further changes that would happen, be it in the figure overall, would have to be decided by the Department of Health. But this is very much in line with what we've provided elsewhere. I appreciate that mightn't be. It mightn't be really what colleagues want to hear. But I think it's important that we do treat people fairly and that there is equity in terms of any of the supports that we are providing. Thanks very much. Thank you, Liz. Look, just going on from what Senator Ruan said there, redress, the decoupling of redress and justice. Redress schemes, generally speaking, are brought in to expedite the quick settlement, if you want, of an injustice that was carried out. And in a lot of cases, the people we're talking about now opt for a redress scheme because they have been keeping this secret all their lives. They don't want their personal lives in the high court. They don't want that. So there's an opportunity to resolve as best they can through a redress scheme. And I think we need to be very careful about trying to make justice and redress the same thing. The other thing, Senator Higgins mentioned learning lessons. If I hear another department in this country saying lessons have been learned, they're not learned. Senator Boyan has already outlined the number of cases that are coming down the line with other institutions. Lessons are not learned. We don't learn lessons. The only way we learn lessons is if we hold people to account and it hurts them in their pocket. Then we learn lessons. And what was supposed to be paid over to this state by religious institutions has not been paid. So lessons have not been learned. Thank you. Minister, to respond. Firstly, can I just make it very clear, and if it maybe came across in a different way, redress is not to prevent people from taking legal action. It's not to substitute one or the other. Redress is an acknowledgement of a wrong. And in a small way, I think in many instances, an attempt to try and right that wrong. You can never write that wrong. But redress is not there to stop anybody from taking legal action to prevent somebody from getting the justice that they rightly deserve. But I think to Senator Crockrell's point, it's to make sure that insofar as possible, for what is often a large number of people, there is an option there available to them if they do not wish to take the other route but to not prevent them. There was no waiver in this legislation, just to be clear on that, and to be very clear. But I think to your point, Senator, and again to the fact that what I'm focused on here and what this bill can only focus on is the survivors that we're discussing here and the institutions. What you're talking about is a much wider piece for government looking at all forms of abuse, all issues that have happened over the last number of years and the way the state responds to them. And I don't think it would be appropriate for me as an individual minister to say we're going to do a particular review. But I think if there's any type of changes or reviews looking at, whether it's waivers, looking at the way in which commissions of investigation, as I mentioned, we will have one coming down soon, where they're conducted or how they're conducted, I do think that has to be done on a whole of government level. But again, I have to be very clear, Redress is here to say that we are trying to in some way acknowledge that a right has been caused here. It does not and should not ever prevent somebody from going to court, from getting the justice that they deserve. And this bill in itself doesn't have a waiver included in it. Maybe just in 22, and again, if I could work with the deputy on this, obviously I can't say in a bill what we are going to resource SAGE, even though it gets funding from my department that has to go through a budgetary process. But if there was a way that we could work together, be it in legislation as an amendment, or more broadly setting out the work that SAGE Advocacy does, how they could be empowered further, are there changes that could be made, be it through an amendment or a commitment that I would make with you here, I'm happy to do that. But the wording as it is talks about funding, what they would be provided in terms of resources. I obviously have to go through the same budgetary process as anybody else, but I do want to find a way that we could acknowledge that specific amendment, because I think the work that SAGE does is excellent. I certainly want to be able to empower them further, want to make sure that they have the resources that they need. Thank you, Les Kirlik. Now, look, just very briefly, Minister, the issue of the contributory pension for those who were in institutions is something that really has to be investigated, because if they were employed, and if somebody got money for the labour that they gave, then that labour should have been covered under social insurance stamps back in the day, or PRSI. And if there are companies in this country that had the use of slave labour from these institutions, that the institutions received money for, then we have to find a way to, if you want, enhance their social insurance contributions, and provide for them a contributory pension that they would be legally entitled to, had they been working in a decent, fair employment. So I think maybe it doesn't come under the scope of the bill, but I think it's something that has to be investigated. And I will share with your office the name of the company I have today. And I do think we need to see what other companies in the state that profited from the labour, the slave labour of people who were in these institutions. And this probably goes beyond the mother and baby. It probably goes to industrial schools and various other forms of where people were incarcerated. I'm actually horrified by it. So I think you would be equally horrified by it. So we've got to look and see if there's a way to make those companies that had that labour actually pay social insurance contributions for pensions. Look, and I too want to commend Senator Tully for bringing forward this amendment. I think the wording is important. She talks about it being commensurate with compensation from religious. Drive into any village, any town in Ireland, and the largest building you'll find will be the church. I agree with what Senator Boyne said. I've known many, many good churchmen. And I've known churchmen who have gotten out of their bed at night to help families in distress. So they weren't all bad eggs. But the problem is these institutions, these organisations, benefited hugely from the money. In my own home area of Salt Hill in Galway, land was sold by the church to build massive houses on at enormous cost the sites were. And they were sold by the church. One secondary school sold off part of its land and apartments were built on it. Where did that money go? And who does that money really belong to? I think, as Senator Tully has pointed out, it belongs to those who lived in the institutions under the brutal systems that they operated, where they farmed out people like as if they were cattle. So I would like to see some serious action on that amendment. And again, I congratulate you, Senator Tully. Thank you, Senator, and indeed, Senators, for speaking on this. Could I say at the outset, obviously, I fully support and appreciate the intention behind the amendment. I think at the very outset, I said in our debate last week, and I agree with you, Senator Boyan, that every single person involved here, those who are responsible, firstly, for committing these absolutely atrocious crimes and this level of abuse, that they must be held responsible. That those who looked the other way and turned a blind eye, that they must be held responsible. And that we must make sure that it's not just an acknowledgement and an admittance of wrong, but that there is payment where payment can be made and where it should be made, not just for this redress, but for many other instances which we've discussed here. We are discussing this legislation. We are discussing this particular agency and the fund in place. What I do have to stress is that we have had two separate payments, and you've mentioned one, Senator Boyan, in terms of the Legally Binding Indemnity Act and then the 2009 voluntary offers. So what we're doing here is essentially winding down this particular programme. But what I will say, and what I am absolutely committed to, and there's a clear commitment from government, is that there are and there will be further avenues to make sure that those who are responsible, be it religious orders or indeed other organisations, that they don't just accept and acknowledge the harm that they have caused to thousands, in particular of young people, but that they pay and contribute towards that some acknowledgement or small bit of acknowledgement of what they've done. Because I don't think any payment could ever really truly acknowledge the harm that has been inflicted on many of them. So while I can't accept this amendment, we are specifically talking about this scheme. The redress scheme has passed. There have been different contributions from the various different religious orders. What I can say absolutely is that this government is committed to ensuring that every single religious order and or other, that they are responsible for the crimes, that they are also responsible for paying into any scheme or any redress that we would roll out into the future. Thank you.