I find it absolutely infuriating to listen to people in the one breath talk about the value of life, the value of migrants, how they should be treated, the value of their work and contributions when they get here and then, on the other hand stand with a European Union that does use EU money, through the trust fund for Africa, to intercept boats at sea. We can make the stretch and say that it is not our money that is paying for detention centres. We are talking about breaking the cycle of smugglers, while creating t…

Tell me how breaking the business model of smugglers has anything to do with search and rescue. We talk about the protection of vulnerable migrants, but it is as if they are not vulnerable unless they end up on our doorstep. We do not want to recognise their vulnerability in the sea. We do not want to recognise their vulnerability in the detention centres we are forcing them to stay in when we intercept their boats and push them back. EU money supports that, and Government MEPs have voted for it. It is no good sitt…

It does not matter how far back in the system we go; we are responsible. Today we have a Government, which is not supporting a motion that calls for search and rescue. How does that make sense? Does the Minister of State think a smuggler cares how many times we send people back to the detention centre? I am sure they are rubbing their hands at the prospect of another trip to be paid for. They will be saying, "Oh, you are back again? You were intercepted again? Okay, this is how much it will cost to go again." What …

Although we will support the motion, it misses some crucial aspects. I thank Senator Garvey's office for engaging with us but, unfortunately, we realised too late that amendments we had tabled could not be accepted, which meant we ended up missing the amendment deadline. I might, therefore, put on record some of the issues relating to guidance counsellors. I echo the comments of other Senators regarding the important role they play. It is so important, when we consider their role, that we take into account their sp…

I move amendment No. 14: In page 14, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “Report on provision of additional payments to those who experienced forced family separation 19 . The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the potential to make provision for supplementary payments, in addition to any entitlement under this section to a general payment or work-related payment under this Act, to relevant persons who experienced forced fa…

Amendment No. 14 calls for a report after 12 months on the potential for additional payments to be made available under the scheme for those who experienced forced family separation. We had to resubmit this Committee Stage amendment with a new timeframe of 12 months. Senator Higgins argued at length on the issue of forced family separation on Committee Stage but it is important that I make it clear during this final debate. It is a gross abuse of the trust of survivors that forced family separation is totally absen…

I will make a few brief points. Nearly all that can be said on the issue has been said, but I will pick up on a few small points. The forced family separation piece is not only about people giving evidence to get additional payments. Some people, despite not being registered as having been in the county home for one night, still experienced forced family separation because of these institutions. Under this scheme, such people will not be able to get payment. In recognising forced family separation, we recognise tha…

I move amendment No. 15: In page 14, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: "Report on extension of eligibility for general payment under Scheme 19. (1) The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the potential to extend eligibility under section 18(1) for a general payment to all relevant persons who were resident in a relevant institution for any period of time, including those who were resident for less than 180 days. (2) A repo…

As the Minister knows, we are not allowed to amend the Bill to directly delete the minimum 180-day residency requirement for survivors to qualify for general payment under the scheme. As a compromise, this amendment No. 15 once again calls for a report on the potential to remove the 180-day residency requirement. It also calls for the Minister to examine how many applied to the scheme within the 12 months and were deemed ineligible specifically because of the 180-day residency requirement. It is to be hoped this se…

With regard to evidence, for many of us, it is not about evidence and creating some sort of really difficult system for people, it is also about recognition of their testimony. It goes without saying that there will be people when they apply, no matter what the application processes look like, who will want to continue to tell what happened to them. Sometimes, that alone is evidence enough - someone's personal testimony, including around the racial abuse and the vaccine trials. It is not creating this really diffic…

I move amendment No. 16: In page 14, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “Report on extension of eligibility for work-related payments under Scheme 19. (1) The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the potential to extend eligibility under section 18(3) for a work-related payment to all relevant persons who were resident in a relevant institution for any period of time, including those who were resident in institutions for les…

Yes.

I move amendment No. 17: In page 14, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “Report on extension of eligibility for provision without charge of health services under Scheme 19. (1) The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the potential to extend eligibility under section 18(4) for provision without charge of health services specified in paragraphs (a) to (h) of section 34(3) to all relevant persons who were resident in a relevan…

I move amendment No. 18: In page 14, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “Report on recognition of experiences of mixed-race children 19. (1) The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the potential to extend the Scheme to recognise the experiences of mixed-race children in Irish institutions. (2) A report under this section shall consider— (a) the potential to extend eligibility for both payments and provision without charge o…

I move amendment No. 19: In page 14, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “Report on provision of additional payments to those who experienced medical experimentation 19. The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the potential to make provision for supplementary payments, in addition to any entitlement under this section to a general payment or work-related payment under this Act, to relevant persons who were subjected to non-c…

I join others in expressing my support for amendment No. 1. There is not a huge amount that I can add to what has been said regarding its impact and necessity. The Civil Engagement Group has co-signed that amendment. I wish to speak on Government amendments Nos. 42 and 43, which are in this grouping, tease them out and get some clarification on them. Those two amendments are a partial acceptance of our proposals on Committee Stage where we called for the review to include analysis of who applied for the scheme and …

I hear what the Minister is saying, namely that the intention is not to reduce or restrict eligibility in any way shape or form but instead clarify it. However, when I read the Bill I see it differently and have some concerns that it is the opposite. Perhaps that is something we can work out in our conversation. On the addition of the concluding years, I read the briefing document provided by the Minister, for which I thank him. In the document he states that the Government until recently believed county homes ceas…

The thing is that some people who experienced trauma, abuses or forced separation may be officially down in the records as only being there to receive maternity services. There is also how these things are recorded within institutions. They may have been sent to those maternity services against their will at the wish of their family. They may have been forced from their children in the weeks of receiving those maternity services. Maybe I am misunderstanding but was there not movement between those who received mate…

In relation to the co-location issue, what I am struggling with is the fact that we are talking about hospitals and county homes but they were operating under the same management. Did they not have the same structures and umbrella? Mother and baby homes were stand-alone institutions but what were the structures in county homes? There were two separate institutions operating within the one site. If I was a pregnant woman would I go to the hospital for maternity services and then be transferred to the county home for…

I am not sure it has because scenarios keep arising in my mind. We are recognising that the hospital or the maternity wing within the hospital and the county home were one and the same thing in a sense and that they cannot be separated. If someone's time in the maternity services is an extension of her time in the county home, it must be recognised in the other direction as well where someone did not go into the county home first and only attended the maternity services. Maybe her family kept her at home until the …