Helen McEntee
Meath East · Fine Gael · Ireland
“There are no new missions, so there is only so much we can partake in. In regard to UN requests over the past ten years, in September 2019, we had 14 Defence Forces personnel deployed to a UN mission in Mali as part of a joint operation with the German armed forces.”
“I thank the Deputy for his continued engagement on this matter. It is appreciated and I reaffirm our shared commitment to truth and justice, not least for Private Rooney, but in particular for his family.”
“I thank the Deputy for raising the matter. I know he is committed to this issue; I am too. I have in recent months spent some time travelling to different barracks and Army bases and meeting with personnel. What I see all over the country is their professionalism, dedication and commitment.”
“I disagree that people are being pushed into the courts. The situation is exactly the opposite. I have said in the Chamber many times since I started taking these questions that the State Claims Agency is there and wants to mediate and work directly with people in order that cases do not go directly to the courts.”
“We are all committed to strengthening recruitment to and supporting retention in the Permanent Defence Force. The military authorities have advised that the strength of the Permanent Defence Force stood at 7,823 personnel on 31 May, the most recent date for which we have a figure available.”
“It is the case that no mission is the same, so it is also a matter for the Defence Forces to assess and scope out the mission and then to decide whether it is a mission we can partake in. A question keeps being asked about what it is we would not be able to be a part of if we were to keep the triple lock.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,132 lines we hold for Helen McEntee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 32 of 43.
“6 and 8 has either been set out in the reports the bodies referred to publish yearly or will be published as part of the Department of education's final reports, which must be provided where any scheme that has been in operation for a number of years is wound down or dissolved. We must learn from those reports to ensure we do our very best for survivors in any future redress schemes. For the reasons I have outlined, I cannot accept the amendments.”
“Waivers are a common feature of most redress schemes. The waiver to which the Senator makes specific reference in amendment No. 6 relates to a scheme, Caranua, that was established separately and is no longer in operation. There is not a specific reference to the waivers because some people had waivers and others did not. I fully appreciate the Senator's point that a lot of people had them. Waivers are put in place because redress schemes are intended to be easily accessible for people. I appreciate this has not always been the case but the intention is to ensure people do not have go through a legal process, which is often complex and challenging. I acknowledge completely that it is not always the case that redress schemes are straightforward. In terms of this legislation, much of what is being asked for in amendments Nos.”
“They were people with court awards and settlements that did not require a waiver and who were able to access the Caranua scheme. With the supports under discussion, the person does not have to have availed of Caranua to avail of the educational or the medical card scheme, but we have applied the same criteria as would have been for the redress scheme. A lot of people would have signed waivers, but not everybody. For what we are talking about here and what the Senator is talking about more broadly, I do not believe that I as a single Minister can decide whether waivers are appropriate for a redress scheme, full stop. I am focused on these criteria, in which there is not a specific reference to a waiver. There is for the redress scheme, which is a separate piece.”
“I do not think anybody could suggest that what we are providing here will in any way make amends or erase what has happened. This is just an acknowledgement of what survivors have gone through. What I am trying to do with this is make sure that survivors get access as quickly as possible and that we learn. Much of the information that has been mentioned is set out in Caranua's annual reports. The Department will have to produce a final report setting out much of what is in this. It will not include waivers because waivers were part of the previous scheme. That will not change; that is very much set out in that criteria. As regards anything we decide in the future, though, we have to be able to learn what has worked well and what has not.”
“It was 20-odd years ago. A decision would have to be taken on whether we introduced them or had them as part of any future scheme. I believe that lessons are learned. For example, the educational supports that will be provided through this are different to the approach that would have been taken even in Caranua, where people had to provide receipts to show what they had purchased or what they were doing. That will not be the case here. We will not be seeking that from people. We always have to show that we are evolving and learning and that we are taking survivors' experience into account in terms of what has and has not worked, how we can make it easier and how we can lessen the stress of what survivors have to go through just to access these. I hope that is reflected in this. To the question, I hope the Senator is happy.”
“With any scheme, I agree that we have to learn. I hope that we do not spend the next 20 or 30 years having to produce schemes. I hope we can do everything that we can, as soon as possible, for survivors regardless of whether they are included today or otherwise. I acknowledge the survivors with us in the Public Gallery. Much of the information the Senators are referencing in amendments Nos. 6 or 8 - particularly the latter - is available through Caranua's report, which is prepared annually. Once this legislation is wound down and Caranua is dissolved, the Department of Education and Youth will have to produce a final report setting out much of the information that is in this. Some of it is already available and some of it is provided within Caranua's annual report. The waiver applies as it did for the scheme. That will not change.”
“Specifically on waivers, the Senator is correct. If a person applied to the redress scheme, the waiver would apply there. Obviously, the same criteria have applied for those, be that through Caranua or for the supports we are now putting in place. The person could also apply for Caranua if he or she had gone through a legal process and received a payment or an element of a payment and there was not a waiver in that regard. While it might apply to some people, it does not apply to everybody. Waivers tend to be part of redress schemes not just here in Ireland, but in many other jurisdictions. To change that would have to be a Government decision, in that it would be a decision taken in respect of any potential future schemes, but we cannot change what was in place for a scheme that was administered 20 years ago.”
“On the amendments we agreed previously, one specifically was in relation to amendments to the criteria, or reviewing the criteria, for the education supports that would be provided through my Department. The second area where I had engagement with Senator Boyhan was specifically around the work of the advocacy group Sage and outlining what it provided. I could come back in a few moments on the elements of what is being requested here and the fact that much of this information is already readily available, given that Caranua produces yearly reports. There would have to be a final report once this legislation was wound down.”
“It is not that I do not accept the rationale behind the Senator's arguments but this is directly and legally linked to the Caranua payments and the redress scheme. To open that up again would not be in line with the legislation.”
“Section 49, which the Senator has mentioned, is very much connected to the mother and baby homes. That is not something I can amend here and not something we are discussing in this legislation. That is not something I can do because it is connected to the mother and baby homes, which is a different scheme falling under the remit of a different Minister. I appreciate that, in our discussions today, last week and elsewhere, we have discussed many different survivors and instances. However, I must stay focused on the Bill itself, which is directly linked to Caranua, a body that was directly linked to those in receipt of the payments. It is for those reasons that I cannot accept the amendment.”
“As I have outlined before, this legislation and the supports being provided are directly linked to those who availed of funding through Caranua. Caranua was previously directly linked to those who had availed of the initial redress scheme. There was a very clear and direct link to those who availed of those supports. The intention behind this Bill is not just to wind down Caranua. Caranua was set up with a very specific focus and with a set amount. This Bill puts the supports that were provided through Caranua on a more permanent footing, enabling people to access the medical card and making sure those educational supports are in place. While we have obviously had debate and discussion on the limit and the level of payment, this Bill will put these supports in place permanently once it is enacted. The criteria are very specific.”
“Section 49 relates to the mother and baby institutions, which come under the Department of Children, Disability and Equality, so any changes in that regard would have to take place under its remit. The Senator mentioned the criteria relating to the mother and baby homes scheme, but they are not the criteria that apply here. While I appreciate it was some years ago, we have to apply the same criteria in this legislation as applied to somebody who applied under the original redress scheme. They are the criteria that will apply once this legislation is passed and the supports are in place. Unfortunately, for those reasons, I will not be able to accept the amendment.”
“It complements and works with Sage Advocacy in providing support. While I cannot accept the amendment, I accept the spirit of what Senator Boyhan is trying to achieve. I make a clear commitment to him today about the importance of Sage and its role in the resources once the legislation has been enacted. Unfortunately, I cannot accept the second amendment, No. 4. I understand the points that are being made about those who are not included in the Bill, which is very specific and directly linked to those who had previously received redress. The same criteria were applied to Caranua, so they must apply to anybody availing of the health or educational supports. They do not apply to Sage, which is there for all people to engage with, but specifically to the elements that are mentioned in this legislation.”
“Speaking to the Senator's previous point, we all have a role in making sure that people understand that Sage is there for them and that there are advocates and individuals across the country to support survivors in whatever way they need and by whatever means. I hope my commitment is very clear: Sage is a very important organisation, especially in the context we are discussing here today. It is doing very positive work. I hope more people will be able to avail of that support. I am committed to continuing to provide funding for such support and resources. In parallel with that and as Senator Boyhan mentioned, there was a commitment made today by the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality, Deputy Foley, to the role of the advocate. The first report was published today. It is important that the role continue.”
“I thank colleagues for their engagement. Senator Boyhan has outlined the reasons I cannot accept amendment No. 3. It is specifically due to the naming but also the reference to the provision of resources, which is not something I can agree to. It is something that must be worked through on a yearly basis. I have outlined to him in writing our commitment to Sage - to the work it has done and the work it is currently doing. I also referred to the existing supports: the 13 staff and the €1.7 million. There is a commitment to ensure that, when the review takes place before the end of the current round of funding at the end of 2026, the support continues. I believe that it will also be possible to make changes to expand or adapt it.”
“Even then, I think any Minister would look to see whether it is likely that someone would do so a year, two years or three years later. A decision would have to be taken at that stage. However, this will not prohibit anyone from applying for the educational support under the scheme. It merely states that if the scheme has run its course and no one is availing of it, there is an opportunity for the Minister to wind it down. Overall, I think and hope something we agree on is that the scheme's criteria will be reviewed to make sure it is working effectively and well and that those who want to avail of it will do so when they can. The Minister will review the educational component of the scheme "not later than 3 years from the date of the previous review". I thank Senator Boyhan and other colleagues for their engagement on this.”
“It will not cause problems for anyone if there is no one to apply to the scheme. It is not helpful to have a scheme in legislation that is not available to anyone because there is no one to avail of it. This simply states that the scheme can be wound down if, in 20 or 30 years' time, nobody is applying for it because none of the 16,000 or so people who want to avail of it and who have decided to the avail of it for whatever reason is left or, unfortunately, because of the timeframe involved, may sadly have passed away and not been able to avail of it. This is somewhat common practice. If a scheme is not operating and no one is there or wants to avail of it, it would, after a period, be wound down. The amendment states clearly that there must be at least three years during which no one avails of it.”
“The scheme is specific to individuals who have availed of the previous redress. There were over 16,000 of those people. At a certain point, perhaps in 20 or 30 years, there will potentially be nobody left to apply for the scheme. We would have a scheme open and available to people who potentially are not there to avail of it.”
“The Government amendment means that a three-year period cannot pass without a review to consider the criteria, how they are being applied and how people are able to use the fund. As I stressed previously, this is not money for master's degrees or for professional master of education, PME, qualifications or anything like that. The fund can be for educational and training board, ETB, courses and above. It is to ensure that people can access different courses. The provision under paragraph (c), to which Senator Ruane referred, means that if in 20 years' time the Minister conducts a review and for the previous three years nobody has applied, he or she might at that stage decide that if in another few years nobody else has applied, he or she may wind down the scheme.”
“I thank Senators for their engagement. I thank, in particular, Senator Boyhan for his engagement on this particular section and these amendments. As he has outlined, I support the idea. We have followed through on having a review of the criteria for the educational supports that will follow once this Bill is enacted. As I outlined to the Deputy on the proposal for a review after one year, in respect of anything for which we gather data for the first year, it takes until the second year or into the third year to collate and understand the data and to see how well an initiative is working. I think the maximum period of three years gives us an opportunity to assess data after a year or a year and a half, or whatever category it falls into.”
“While I cannot accept the amendment we are specifically talking about, and while the redress scheme has passed and there have been various contributions from the various different religious orders, I can say absolutely that the Government is committed to ensuring every single religious order or other relevant body that is responsible for the crimes will also be responsible for paying into any scheme or redress mechanism we roll out in the future.”
“What we are doing is essentially winding down this particular programme. However, having regard to what is a clear commitment from the Government, I am absolutely committed to exploring further avenues to ensure those responsible, be they religious orders or other organisations, do not just accept and acknowledge the harm they have caused to thousands of individuals, particularly young people, but also pay and contribute as a small acknowledgement of what they have done. I use the word "small" because no payment could ever truly acknowledge the harm inflicted on many.”
“I thank the Senators for speaking on this. I fully support and appreciate the intention behind the amendment. As I stated last week – I agree with Senator Boyhan in this regard – every person responsible for committing the absolutely atrocious crimes and perpetrating such abuse must be held responsible. Those who looked the other way or turned a blind eye must be held responsible. We must ensure there is not just an acknowledgement and an admission of wrong but also payment where it can and should be made, not just regarding this redress but also the many other instances we have discussed here. We are discussing this legislation, a particular agency and the fund in place. I stress that we have had two separate payments. In this regard, Senator Boyhan mentioned the legally binding indemnity scheme and the 2009 voluntary offers.”
“What I am proposing is that I will work with the Senator to see if we can find a form of wording to put forward an amendment and, if not, we will work to set out exactly what work is being done by Sage Advocacy, how we can enhance that and how we can give a commitment to provide future resources because the amendment is specific to resources.”
“The amendment concerns a range of supports that would be provided on the recommendation of Sage Advocacy. As this is not a matter within the remit of Sage Advocacy, I cannot accept the amendment. Amendment No. 22 is the amendment the Senator and I said we would engage on further.”
“This amendment relates to the special advocate. As the special advocate falls under the Minister for children, it is not within my remit so I cannot accept this amendment. This amendment is separate from the amendment related to Sage Advocacy that was mentioned.”
“I have to go through the same budgetary process as anybody else but I want to find a way we could acknowledge that specific amendment. The work Sage Advocacy does is excellent and I certainly want to be able to empower it further and ensure it has have the resources it needs.”
“It does not, and should never, prevent somebody from going to court to get the justice that he or she deserves. This Bill in itself does not have a waiver included in it. On amendment No. 22, perhaps I could work with the Senators on this. Obviously, I cannot say in a Bill what we are going to resource. Even though Sage Advocacy gets funding from my Department, that must go through a budgetary process. If there was a way we could work together, be it through legislation as an amendment, a commitment that I would make to Senators or more broadly in setting out the work that Sage Advocacy does, how it could be empowered further and other changes that could be made, I am happy to do that. The wording of the amendment talks about funding and what Sage Advocacy would be provided in resources.”
“What I am focused on, and what the Bill can only focus on, is the survivors we are discussing and the institutions. What Senator Higgins is talking about is a much wider piece for the Government looking at all forms of abuse, all issues that have happened over the past number of years and the way the State responds to them. I do not think it would be appropriate for me as an individual Minister to say we are going to do a particular review. If there are types of change or reviews looking at waivers or the way in which commissions of investigation are conducted - I mentioned we will have one coming down soon - that has to be done on a whole-of-Government level. Again, I have to be very clear that redress is here to say that we are trying in some way to acknowledge that a right has been caused here.”
“If it came across in a different way, let me make it clear that redress is not to prevent people from taking legal action and it is not to substitute one for the other. Redress is an acknowledgement of a wrong and, in a small way in many instances, an attempt to try to right that wrong. One can never right that wrong but redress is not there to stop anybody from taking legal action or to prevent somebody from getting the justice he or she rightly deserves. On Senator Craughwell's point, it is to make sure insofar as possible that, for what is often a large number of people, there is an option available to them if they do not wish to take the other route. It is not to prevent them. There is no waiver in this legislation. I just want to be very clear on that.”
“The first report is with the Minister for children, as we have discussed. I have given a commitment previously to engage with the Minister for children to see if there is anything further we need to do. I am not under any impression that the role will change, move or be demoted in any way. It is about making sure the role works for all of the survivors and those who need it most. I am committed to that, separate from anything here.”
“I say this with the greatest respect, and not to sound harsh. Unfortunately, when you have a redress scheme there will always have to be criteria. There will never be a situation where you have an open-ended redress scheme. When you put parameters of any kind in place, you will unfortunately always have somebody outside of it. What we are discussing today is a follow on from those who were included in the initial scheme, the subsequent educational payments and others, and now obviously including Caranua. We cannot have a report in six months' time. We have already gone through this process and set out exactly how the criteria have been applied. I turn to the establishment of a special advocate. I stress that we have a special advocate. This person was appointed by the Minister for children in recent times.”
“I again stress that what we are agreeing today is what has been set out in terms of the supports, and this is what we are voting on. Therefore, a report in a number of months' time to change that is not something that would be possible. Amendment No. 26 touches on a number of elements, but I turn first to the specific points it mentions, particularly on waivers. It is common for there to be a waiver in many redress schemes simply because the redress scheme is there in place of a legal challenge or legal pathway that may have taken place or may take place, that there is not one or the other. It is common practice in lots of ways, not just in redress schemes, and that is not going to change. That will be in situ in terms of the restriction to survivor qualifications. There has been a lengthy process over many years setting out the criteria.”
“We want to ensure they are supported and resourced to assist individual survivors to access supports and provisions listed in this Act. I am not sure we need a report to do that. In fact, we should be acting on that more quickly. I am happy to work with Senators to set out how we make sure Sage has the resources and supports it needs and how we make sure survivors are aware of what is being provided by Sage Advocacy. I can come back to Senators on that. There is a way of wording something that does not just result in a report but sets out how we can engage further with Sage to make sure it has the resources and supports it needs. I might come back to that on Report Stage. Amendment No. 23 is about a report on increased supports for all former residents.”
“That work has been done and that is what we are discussing, but it is neither within the remit nor the role of the special advocate to set out what types of supports would be provided. Unfortunately, I cannot accept that amendment. Amendment No. 21 states that further supports would be recommended and provided through Sage. I again stress that Sage Advocacy is an advocacy group, and it is not within its remit to recommend what types of supports might be provided outside of what has already been agreed and what we have been discussing for survivors. Amendment No. 22 discusses how Sage Advocacy can be empowered, supported and resourced to assist individual survivors to access supports and provisions listed in this Act. This essentially says that we want to empower advocacy groups and, in particular, Sage, which I agree with.”
“While I cannot accept this amendment, I suggest to Senator that we work together for me to bring something forward on Report Stage that would ensure there is a review. It is absolutely the case that if a payment is being provided for education, that people can use it for education, that it is enough for them and that it helps them get that education. I am happy to bring forward an amendment that would incorporate a review and to work with the Senator on that between now and when we come back to the House, if that is okay, Amendment No. 20 essentially says that the special advocate would set out supports that can be provided. It is not the role of the special advocate to set out supports.”
“There are a number of amendments, and I will go through them one by one. Amendment No. 16 relates to something we have previously discussed. I restate and stress again that the payment of €3,000 is in line with the previous payments of the other schemes. It is something that does not require an individual apology to show where it is being spent. It is a payment directly to the individual, but it is obviously under the heading of a health payment. I cannot accept that amendment. Amendment No. 19 is somewhat different. This is not something that has been in place before. It is a different type of payment specifically for education. I do not think it should be reviewed on a yearly basis, but I am happy to say it should be reviewed.”
“We need a scheme that is fair and equitable right across the various schemes that have been rolled out to date, and make sure that people get it as quickly as possible. If we approve this legislation in the coming weeks, and I hope we will, that payment can be made available. If we do not enact the legislation then the payment will not happen. I want to make sure that all of the supports contained in this legislation can be accessed as quickly as possible.”
“I am always open to amendments. I spent most of my time in my previous role as Minister for Justice either in this House or the other House debating legislation given the type of Department that it was. I am always open to amendments and working with colleagues here. I agree with a lot of the amendments tabled today. Some of them are in the Bill already and that is why they have not been accepted. I simply cannot accept other amendments and some amendments have been ruled out of order. In terms of the payment, we must specify in the Bill what is being paid which is why we have the figure, to make sure that it is in line with the others. I am not saying that it is the figure and, personally, I would love to give an indefinite one. We need to be clear in what we are doing here.”
“The scheme will be put in place through the Department of Health and any further changes, including to the amount of the payment, will be decided by that Department. This is very much in line with what we have provided elsewhere but I appreciate that may not be what colleagues want to hear. It is important that we treat people fairly and there is equity in terms of the supports we provide.”
“However, I do not see why we would not reciprocate and ensure any payments we are paying out do not have any implications for individuals living there, and vice versa . We will be engaging with our British and Northern Irish colleagues in that regard. Unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment because I cannot legislate for what another country does, but that engagement is happening and will continue. Regarding the payment amount of €3,000, I appreciate that Senators will not like my answer. It is very much about keeping the allocation in line with what was provided for other schemes and making sure we do not have something different for somebody who may have gone through a very similar experience, albeit in a different setting.”
“I cannot accept amendment No. 15 simply because I cannot legislate for what another government does in its jurisdiction. However, engagement is already happening between my Department, the Department of children and our sisters departments in Britain and Northern Ireland. As Senators referenced, the vast majority of survivors who have moved away have gone to Britain or Northern Ireland. The new scheme in Northern Ireland deals with people living in the North who were in institutions here and how payments to them from this State may impact other payments they receive. A meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference tomorrow and this issue will be part of the discussions we have. Ultimately, how this payment is handled in terms of its impact on other benefits will be a decision for the UK Government and the Executive to make.”
“The exact figure is €50,000 or so, but I am absolutely clear that wherever that money goes, it has to go directly to survivors, and it should be at their discretion as to where it should go.”
“I will respond to a couple of points. It is an average of €15,000. Some might have received less; some might have received more. Some 57,000 payments have been made in total. A lot of them would have been from when the Senator mentioned, in 2017. There were two main elements of the way they were paid out, namely, housing and home improvements, which accounted for €68.7 million, and health supports at €27.4 million. Any of the remaining elements went to education and other areas of support. There have been audited accounts every year, and they are available. It is very clear to see where they have gone and to whom they have gone. That has happened every year, but that is in and around how the figure has been divided up.”
“Anybody who has come to Caranua has received that funding, but it has significantly reduced. I will get the exact figure for colleagues when I can.”
“I will come back on two things in case they were misconstrued. It is not that one has to be wound down for the other. The supports can only come into play with the legislation. Given that Caranua itself is finished, it and the fund are coming hand in hand. It is not that one has to go with the other. I do not want to mislead in terms of figures, and I want to get absolute clarity on what is left. What has been relayed to me is in and around €50,000, so nowhere near what the Senator suggested. We are talking about a huge amount having gone out over recent years. I do not have the exact figure but it is in and around that amount. Obviously, wherever that goes, it will have to go towards survivors in some shape or form and it is really important that they would have a say in that, but that is what is left.”
“That is never to rule out engagement with any other institution or any other individual who has suffered abuse. If there is engagement or work I can do to support other individuals who do not fall within the scheme, I am always happy to do that and to engage within them. I appreciate these are people who are very directly linked to the initial scheme that was set up because this is legally linked to it. This is winding down so that we can provide these supports. I want to make sure that everybody involved here has access to the supports. More than 16,000 people will have access to these supports once this legislation is enacted, and it is really important that people do have access to them.”
“To the Senator's earlier point, I am happy to engage with the Minister for Health. If we need more clear direction for members of the HSE to make sure they know what the enhanced medical card is, who is availing of it and what they should be getting, we need to do that. I am happy to make that clear and to engage with my colleague in the Department of Health in that regard. Again, we are not putting a limit on the therapies or counselling services; it is about making sure they are there and that we have enough therapists. We have to invest in our services overall. I will repeat, and this is not to go around Senator Boyhan 's question, that I can only work within the parameters I have because they are legally directly linked to those who were in the previous schemes.”
“I hope the Senators would agree that I am not reading off a script and am genuinely responding to the questions as they emerge. I want to be honest and straightforward on all of this. Whether it is the enhanced medical card or the HAA card, if there are challenges around waiting lists and access, I would respectfully say that we still have the same problem. On an earlier point made by Senator Craughwell, we need to make sure that every single person in the HSE knows there is already a direction that if a person is a survivor of abuse, he or she should be moved ahead. That is very clear and that is what has been relayed to me. Certainly, the information I have is that where those who are in receipt of the enhanced medical card have been victims and are now survivors of abuse, they should be brought forward in that list.”
“I want to be clear on this point so people know that. Regarding the work, I appreciate we are talking about amendments that were rolled out by the secretariat. I am not disputing what has been said regarding the individuals who were referred to. What we had prior to coming to the House and in recent years was a process to engage and understand what could be excluded and what could not be, and what should be included and what should not be. The recommendations I have here are based on that engagement. I take the Senator’s point that there may be another way to provide pension supports for individuals and I am very happy to explore that option with the Minister, Deputy Chambers, to see if there is an opportunity to do that. A lot of work has been done to tease through exactly what we are discussing here today.”