I move amendment No. 3: In page 6, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “(b) the date on which the youngest child of shared parentage reaches the age of 18, or the age of 22 where the child is receiving full-time education,”. I am going to actually withdraw these amendments. They are consequential on the amendments that were ruled out of order, so they do not make sense on their own. I will refrain from speaking to them.

I move amendment No. 5: In page 12, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following: “(b) the date on which the youngest child of shared parentage reaches the age of 18, or the age of 22 where the child is receiving full-time education,”.

I move amendment No. 9: In page 16, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “(b) the date on which the youngest child of shared parentage reaches the age of 18, or the age of 22 where the child is receiving full-time education,”.

I move amendment No. 10: In page 25, after line 37, to insert the following: “Report on provision of supports to bereaved children 22. The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas regarding the adequacy of supports provided to bereaved children, with particular reference to the children of lone-parent families, where a child’s parents were not married, in a civil partnership, or cohabiting on the date of death of the bereaved parent.”. I am going…

I am looking for clarification in respect of Government amendment No. 2. At paragraph (c), it states, "The Minister, on being satisfied that no application has been made under subsection (1) for a period of not less than three years, may, by order, appoint a day on which this subsection shall cease to have effect." Is my understanding correct that even through the time for a review will switch to three years, if nobody applies within a certain three-year period and there have been no applications, the educational f…

Would it not just lie idle then? If that is put in, it could cause problems.

That clarifies the first question.

I move amendment No. 6: In page 9, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “Report on Caranua 7. The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas reviewing the functions of Caranua, examining, inter alia: (a) the adequacy of healthcare, educational and financial supports provided to survivors; (b) the use of waivers; (c) the appropriateness of criteria for survivors’ qualification for supports; (d) recommendations for best practice going fo…

This amendment is related to but an amended version of the amendment we tabled on Committee Stage looking for a report to be drawn up. We have further refined the proposal to be specific to Caranua so that it does not take in other institutions. To paraphrase, the response was that the Minister cannot take in a report that takes in other institutions. This is a new amendment to take that comment into account. This amendment seeks to oblige the Minister to prepare a report on the adequacy of supports provided to sur…

Could I just hear that again? Is the Minister saying that the yearly report from Caranua looks very specifically at the use of waivers?

Okay, that is grand.

The Minister said that removing the use of waivers was a Government decision. This is Government legislation. It is not unusual for us to look to a Minister who is taking responsibility for a Department, and who is in government and bringing Government legislation, and make the assumption that there would be conversations and decisions made by the Government around whether using a waiver is appropriate within this legislation. The Minister is saying that some people will have signed a waiver to be part of the redre…

But the waiver is implied.

But for the majority of people, the waiver is implied.

So, given the fact that the waiver is implied, it is part of this scheme and should form part of the discussion. It has been raised time and again as an issue for people in terms of what we have learned and what has worked. It is basically a contract. For a contract to stand, we are able to legislate to be able to remove the legality of having such a waiver in the first place. It creates a system that is completely unequal because it lets into it people who had signed a waiver whereas some others had not, but if th…

Yes.

I second the amendment.

With regard to how much is left in the fund, I have gone back over freedom of information, FOI, requests I submitted in 2017 on the specific fund in Caranua and at that stage, there was €33 million. Therefore, it would be helpful to know what happened between 2017 - I think it was around April 2017 - and now. It was really difficult at the time for survivors to engage with Caranua. They were treated terribly at the time. Obviously, there was the €15,000 cap. I think it was in 2015 that internal auditors decided thi…

This is more of a question, so I can come back on Report Stage. If, between now and then, we have gone from €33 million to €50,000, which would hopefully imply that there was a greater ability to access the fund, did the cap continue to apply or were people able to actually access more than the €15,000? What I am thinking now is that there were people before a cap. I know that something like a prioritisation model was put in place at the time rather than applications being dealt with in terms of the needs at the ti…

I echo everything Senator Higgins said. In our minds, redress is about responding to the harms that the State, church or whatever institution has done. It is a response to a wrong that has been done. It is not another mechanism to silence. That is what a waiver does. With institutional abuse in this country, there was a forced silence at every turn where people could not speak about their experiences for fear of isolation, of shame, of their families finding out or whatever it was. A waiver that takes away a person…