Victor Boyhan
Agricultural Panel · Independent · Ireland
“It also mentions the agrifood sector and the importance of diversification in agriculture, the maritime sector, coastal communities and fishing communities in terms of rural policy.”
“I know from my engagement with both the Department and the Minister that over 900 submissions to the consultation process were received. No Member or parliamentarian will have had the opportunity to consider the anonymised version of these consultations, which contain many good suggestions in favour of the regulations and many concerns in…”
“I welcome the Minister and the official to the Seanad. This is particularly important Private Members' business. I thank Senators Collins and Tully for setting out the background and the rationale behind their Private Members' motion. I acknowledge the Minister's exceptional commitment to rural Ireland and his Ministry.”
“I am conscious of the Minister's public consultation, and I acknowledge it and thank them for it, in relation to the Our Rural Future work programme in 2025. In fairness to him, he did not stop at that. I received a further update when I requested it from his office very recently.”
“This will come about through that process. It is for the Minister to decide. Maybe he will do so tomorrow when the regulations are dealt with. However, when Senators are in this Chamber discussing these regulations tomorrow, they will have no sight of any constituent who made a submission. That is my first item.”
“I am pleased to see Senator Byrne in the Leader’s chair. I wish him well in that job. I also wish him well in his new position as Government Whip. There are three items I wish to discuss today. First is the exempt development regulations, which are being covered extensively in the media.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,616 lines we hold for Victor Boyhan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 24 of 33.
“We have a diaspora and a new diaspora vision, which I spoke of in foreign affairs the other day, at the kind invitation of the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond. Maybe there are more of the people I talk about outside the island of Ireland now than there are on this island, and we must never forget them because they too are part of this story. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to this amendment.”
“It is important that we commit, through the Minister's response to this amendment, even if she does not directly accept it, that there be accountability and a summary of the appeals and complaints processes. I hope to have an opportunity at the end of this debate to set out nine key asks as I leave. In this final amendment we are closing one chapter and one door, hoping we will open other doors, but we must clearly send a message of solidarity. We must stick with the people we bargained with. We gave them hope when they had none. I am talking about men and women who had neither brother, sister, mother nor father to contact. They had no advocates. They were slave labourers. There were pregnant women in slavery. There were men farmed out, living in pigsties with no support. We owe it to them.”
“It is vital that survivors know that government is responding." I do not doubt the current Minister. I have every confidence she will see it through. She is Deputy Foley's successor. She is now the Minister for education. She carries the mantle of responsibility for education and schools. I recited and talked about St. Augustine's, which was a school. It was meant to be educating children, but it was educating vulnerable children, who had already been in care and were going into that place daily. The courts last week sentenced a brother from there who perpetrated the most horrendous and heinous crimes on innocent children. We seek to cherish all the children of the nation equally.”
“I go back to the amendment and what it hinges on. It is about some way of recording and accounting to the people. One of the greatest fears in all of this legislation is that we tidy this up, because what are we doing today? We are wrapping up Caranua, our “new friend.” It is the organisation we thought would stand in solidarity with the victims, with those who were physically, mentally, emotionally and sexually abused. We were told in the original legislation that they would never be abandoned. Somehow that is all gone. The Minister's predecessor, Deputy Norma Foley, on 16 April 2024 left Government Buildings and said, "The whole of government is acutely conscious of the enormous trauma which has been endured by all survivors of abuse, including those in residential institutions [and schools].”
“She and I know in our own families that there have been challenges and cases where our siblings or parents have had difficulties in their own relationships and with their own families. That is life. Yes, there were taboos and many things were never spoken about, but we have now moved on to a new Ireland, a liberal Ireland that is free from the dominance of church, that is free from State control and will empower its citizens. We as politicians or advocates must give voice to people. I drove in today and wondered if this was the beginning or the end of a period of campaigning that has gone on for more than 30 years. It can only yet be the beginning. I say to the Minister of education that there is a plethora of schools coming down the line. She talked about the need for a wider commission, and I think that is important too.”
“I sought to be an advocate and as long as I am in this House my only ask is that I will be an advocate, that I will have the courage to give voice to others, that I will have an opportunity to shine light in many a dark place, that I will encourage others, facilitate others and help each other so we can have justice. To Miriam I say, you are not 1061, and that must be one of the greatest reliefs. You are Miriam - your first name, Miriam - and I say well done to you because I receive many letters but the hardest, most powerful and most moving was Miriam; not 1061 anymore, but Miriam. I thank you for sharing that with me. I say to the Minister that it is critically important that we give voice. It is a difficult time, but she and I know in our own families that we have had our setbacks.”
“There are difficult tasks. To our guests, I know how hard it is for you to be here today. I know the courage it took for you to take this journey. You are brave women. You are more than survivors. You are courageous citizens of our State and you will always have a welcome place in this House. I want to assure you of that. What struck me most in all of this was: I am not a number now. I am not number 1061. I am Miriam. I, Victor Boyhan, am not a number. I was number eight. I am now Senator Victor Boyhan in this House. I thank the people across this country who elected me and shared their support for me. I never wanted to be a politician. I never sought to be a politician.”
“Children like us were given criminal records simply for being sent to those institutions, but what crime did we commit? Can people not see the injustices? We were children. I travelled from Kerry yesterday to be with my friends. [Her friends are the ladies sitting here on my right-hand side.] We were fellow survivors. For the first time in a long time within Seanad Éireann or any place, I felt like I belonged. We carried each other's pain. Yes, when I returned home, I cried through the night. Decades later, we still ask ourselves what more must we do for our voices to be finally heard. As long as I am in this House, I am a voice. I will shine a light. I will articulate and advocate for anyone or regarding any injustice in any institution within this State. I know I speak on behalf of the people in this House. We are advocates.”
“It was very difficult for them to share their abuses and horrific stories, yet they had to sign an agreement not to divulge the nature of their redress, compensation, contribution - call it what you like. The letter goes on to say: "Meanwhile, solicitors made millions off our suffering." Indeed they did. I looked at a spreadsheet last week to see the enormous sums, millions of pounds, given to a number of solicitors. Yes, they did their work, but many solicitors received way in excess of the compensation, redress or contribution the victims received. The letter goes on: They never truly worked for us. They were paid by the State. Many survivors received little or nothing. Deals were done between the church and the State to silence us.”
“What jumped off the page was this: "I am writing sincerely to thank you for the courage shown, etc., in relation to the Bill last week." She goes on to say: Since the State's apology in 1999, many of us felt invisible. The so-called redress process was deeply flawed. We were forced to accept what was offered and punished if we dared to appeal or to speak about it. We had to sign waivers and non-disclosure agreements under the threat of arrest if we spoke about what we had received. We cannot even tell our own stories [I talked to the Minister earlier about people telling their own stories] without fear of prosecution. That is true. I know many people who availed of redress and were sworn to secrecy about that experience.”
“I think of that one last week, where an 85-year-old man is now in prison. It struck me in the newspaper article on Sunday that it is an institution that hundreds of people complained about but no one believed them. There was a time when people, including me because the institution is very close to where I live, advocated and asked that the institution be put on. With great difficulty, we eventually got it put on. The Minister was right earlier when she said some were put on but initially they were being refused. The bureaucracy of the systems did not allow it. It reminded me of a letter. I will not read it out in full. The lady is called Miriam.”
“The amendment further states: "In preparing the report, the Minister shall consult a panel of survivor representatives appointed in accordance with principles of transparency and independence." This is in the names of Senators Stephenson, Higgins and Ruane. They cannot be here because they are on other parliamentary business so I will speak on this. Effectively, this is the last amendment so I will take this opportunity to touch on elements that directly relate to it. We have had a long debate and there have been many issues. I know the Minister is going back to the Dáil with this legislation in the next week or two. There is a view that there needs to be a mechanism for reporting on and accounting for what happened and for quantifying the numbers. We know the numbers are horrific and the instances are horrific.”
“The guests may have thought they had been downgraded but now they are being upgraded. The amendment proposes that the "Minister shall, not later than 12 months after the commencement of this Act, and annually thereafter, prepare and lay before each House of the Oireachtas a report on the operation of this Act" outlining the adequacy of implementation of supports to survivors of residential institutional abuse. The report shall indicate the number of applications received and processed, the range and uptake of supports provided, a summary of any appeals or complaints received and an evaluation of survivors' experiences of the scheme.”
“I move amendment No. 15: In page 15, after line 11, to insert the following: "Report on adequacy of implementation of supports to survivors of residential institutional abuse 22. (1) The Minister shall, not later than 12 months after the commencement of this Act, and annually thereafter, prepare and lay before each House of the Oireachtas a report on the operation of this Act. (2) The report shall include— (a) the number of applications received and processed, (b) the range and uptake of supports provided, (c) a summary of any appeals or complaints received, and (d) an evaluation of survivor experiences of the scheme. (3) In preparing the report, the Minister shall consult a panel of survivor representatives appointed in accordance with principles of transparency and independence.".”
“I move amendment No. 13: In page 14, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following: "Amendment of section 28 of Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 20. Section 28 of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 is amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (6): "(6A) Nothing in subsection (6) shall preclude an applicant from publishing information relating to an application made, or reward received, by them under this Act.".".”
“Unfortunately, they are tied up with other parliamentary business and cannot be here. However, they have impressed upon me the issue of the ownership of these documents. People took risks. People went out and told their stories. It is never easy to tell your story about abuse. You bring a certain amount of guilt. You also bring a focus on your family, particularly if it is rural and isolated. People do not necessarily want to confront or talk about the horrific abuses. What this deals with are critical issues around the rights of access to information, particularly information of vulnerable people, who have now, after many a years-long journey, been able or felt empowered through supports of others to be able to share their story. It has been a discovery for them too, for much of this information was not known to them in earlier years.”
“One of the terrible tragedies and anomalies of this scheme is that people, who were children and are now adults, whose institution, for whatever reason, was not included in the schedule are not getting the same redress. That is unfortunate. Later, I will touch on some ideas I have about how we can be inclusive of everybody. We should not be excluding people. I know there is a bureaucratic system in play, and parameters and guidelines had to be drawn up, but people are excluded. To return to the amendments, they are about ownership, as the Minister will appreciate. Of course, the amendments were put together by Senators Higgins and Ruane, who are strong supporters of equality, redress and a fair deal for the victims and survivors of institutional care and institutional organisations in the State.”
“Here was an institution with hundreds of boys and, later, girls who went through an institution that was a school - it was carrying out the curriculum of the Department of education - for children who were classified as slow learners or having special needs. A very high percentage of those children who resided or did not reside there came from nearby residential institutions, some of which qualify for redress. I do not really want to open this up today as it would not be appropriate, but this makes the point that there may still be people, adults now, whose institution was not included in the schedule and, hence, they would not benefit. Only the people whose institutions are on the schedule are going to benefit from this redress.”
“I journeyed with one of the victims and assisted him in navigating the possible remedies open to him. I remind the Minister of something because I think it is important for all of us in this House to remember. That particular institution, St. Augustine's, which was run by the St. John of God order in Blackrock, was not on the original schedule for redress but, despite many objections, we managed to get it included. That is a case in point, when we look back on the history of this. This was recorded in great detail in the Irish Mail on Sunday and a number of other newspapers last Sunday.”
“This is about the ownership of the story and, of course, about the victim of abuse, the survivor or the affected person whom we talk about. We talk about people who were in institutional schools, mother and baby homes and other people. For the many people who do not quite understand it, a journalist stopped me today and asked how it is that only certain institutions that were, supposedly, responsible for the care of children were on the schedule and others were not. I was talking in the context of an horrific story that was covered in our national press last Sunday, where a brother in a religious institution and school in Blackrock has received just short of a five-year sentence after many years. That school was St. Augustine's in Blackrock. It is an horrific story.”
“9 relates to the transfer of data from residential institutions and from the redress board to the Minister and the disclosure of such information. It also seeks to allow the Minister to disclose personal data to a former resident of a residential institution on request. Amendment No. 13 seeks to amend the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 to remove restrictions on applicants to publish information relating to their own personal application or a reward they may have received under the Act. Currently, survivors are not allowed to publish any information concerning their own applications or relating to an award received that could lead to the identification of an institution or a person, including the applicant himself or herself.”
“I thank the Minister and her officials for being here today. I thank all of the guests here. It is great to see so many people here. It is interesting to see that with the exception of two or possibly three men, they are all women. While this is a family matter, it is a particularly important piece of legislation. It is great to see so many people here and no doubt they will have an opportunity to read up on this again at some other point. I will be moving amendments Nos. 9 and 13. For those in the Visitors Gallery, the Bill is the Supports for Survivors of Residential Institutional Abuse Bill 2024. There are a number of reliefs and proposals by the Minister for education, who is taking the Bill at this stage. Amendment No.”
“I move amendment No. 9: In page 13, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following: “(c) on request of a person seeking personal data who was, for any period, resident in an institution specified in the Schedule to the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002;”.”
“I move amendment No. 8: In page 12, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following: “Report on adequacy and constituency of supports provided by the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Board 16. (1) The Minister shall, not later than 9 months after the commencement of this Act prepare and lay before each House of the Oireachtas a report on the evaluation of the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Board. (2) The report shall include— (a) the number of applications received and processed, (b) the range and uptake of supports provided, (c) a summary of any appeals or complaints received, and (d) an evaluation of survivor experiences of the scheme. (3) In preparing the report, the Minister shall consult a panel of survivor representatives appointed in accordance with principles of transparency and independence.”.”
“I thank the Minister of State for his time and for coming to the House this afternoon. I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Grealish, and his colleagues, friends and visitors from Carnmore and Claregalway to the House. They are very welcome and I hope they enjoy their stay here today.”
“I welcome all our guests to the Gallery. I would particularly like to welcome John French and his guests. John works in the Houses and is held in high esteem among us here. I also welcome the men’s shed from Navan and our guests from Carolina, USA. They are all very welcome. This is the section where we deal with Commencement matters, which is individual Senators who flag particular issues of concern to them. They bring them to the Chamber here, the relevant Minister comes and responds and there is that bit of engagement. I hope they all enjoy their stay here today and I thank them for visiting us. Senator Conway has one minute to reply.”
“As there is a vote ongoing in the other House, we will have to wait for the next Minister of State to arrive . He is on his way, I understand. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, to the Seanad. I know he is an exceptionally busy man and there was a vote in the Dáil so we understand he was delayed. We appreciate him coming to the House.”
“We have to stand in solidarity with people who need us and our support. It is incumbent on us to do that. When we look back on the work that has been done in relation to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, what does all of that mean if we can come in here today and proffer excuses for another 18 months? It is a very disappointing show. I will finish on that point. I commend Senator Clonan, a champion and an advocate, who has put his head above the parapet on many occasions. I salute him for it. He will have our support on this side of the House. I wish him well. I beg and implore the Government Members to cross the House tonight and support this very reasonable amendment.”
“However, the amendment talks about the personalised budget demonstrator pilot, which is expected to conclude at the end of the year. In the Government’s own amendment, it is accepted that this scheme will be at the end of the year. This is June. Six months is all we are asking for. I do not see any effort. If the Minister stood up and said she would reduce it to 12 months, that would be one thing, but no, it is 18 months because a group of people sitting around the Cabinet table have told us today that we have to toe the line, and that is decision. It is about humanity. Let us not lose heart. Let us not be heartless. Let us respond to the needs of real people. To be sure, this story will be relayed in the media and politicians in government will roll up and give excuses. We cannot keep giving excuses.”
“I know how difficult it is. This is the Legislature. This is where we make legislation. This is where we put up our hands and say that we actually believe in something and we are going to see it through. So what if someone gets a slap on the hand or gets thrown out of a parliamentary party for six months? Is it better to do the right thing or to always be making the decisions of politicians or of the political party establishment? I do not think this is unreasonable. I accept that the Minister made a good case about the pilot scheme. Indeed, Senator Murphy O’Mahony made a good case about the pilot scheme going through and the timing, which I accept. However, six months is enough, not 18 months. Let us get real. In the Minister’s own words and in the Government amendment, which is signed by Seán Kyne, a period of 18 months is proposed.”
“It is worth pointing out that this Bill had the support of the Independents initially and has the support of Fine Gael, Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil, the Greens and the Labour Party. I thank all of those groups for signing up to it. Therefore, it must be somewhat frustrating for those in the Government parties to sit here and listen to the excuses given. Maybe that is why there are quite a few empty seats on that side of the House. It is not good enough. We cannot keep going out and saying that it is unfortunate. It is not unfortunate. We have it within our hand, within our grasp. Indeed, the Chair herself knows what it is like. She came in here and made many a case and experienced the difficulties and the frustration. I do not want to draw her on that because it would not be fair. However, having talked to her, I know how hard she worked.”
“Nowhere in the Constitution does it talk about a load of people sitting here in blocks of political parties. There is no provision for it. We all have to go home tonight, put our heads on our pillows and ask ourselves whether we did the right thing or whether we did what we were told to do by headquarters or at some parliamentary party meeting to keep a seat, keep ourselves in salaries and keep ourselves thinking that we are important. Now is the time to sit up, walk the walk, cross this floor and support what is a reasonable amendment. The amendment proposes a period of six months. As Senator Clonan said, we are talking about choice, independence, dignity and agency. Surely no one can make any excuses about that.”
“Okay. It is good to have that business out of the way. At the outset, what can I say about Senator Tom Clonan? He is an amazing advocate. What we have seen here today is the lived experience, the man and the family that have lived with that experience of disability. I commend him. It has been a funny day for us in terms of care generally, given the earlier legislation. On the one hand, there is the Government’s concern. I do not doubt the Government's concern but there comes a time when one has to walk across the floor and stand up for what one believes is right. That is not the whip system. No whip system was ever introduced here but it has become a matter of practice in this House. This is the Upper House. We are a bicameral parliament. We are a revising chamber.”
“I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1: To delete “18 months” and substitute “6 months”. I thank the Minister of State for giving us her time. She is at a disadvantage when she comes in halfway through a debate but that is not her fault. I have no doubt she has a good grasp of the legislation and that she may have been looking in from the ante room. It is proposed that the amendment would read: “Seanad Éireann resolves that the Disability (Personalised Budgets) Bill 2024 be read a second time this day 6 months, to allow for the completion of a Personalised Budget Demonstrator Pilot which is expected to conclude at the end of the year.” I did not say it was going to conclude at the end of the year. The Minister did.”
“I move amendment No. 4: In page 9, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “Supports for the excluded 7. (1) Advocacy groups approved by the Minister shall be able to make recommendations to the Minister so that health services and education supports can be allocated to former residents who’ve been excluded from this Bill and previous redress schemes. The Minister shall have the ability to approve the recommendations made by approved advocacy groups on a case-by-case basis. (2) Advocacy groups approved by the Minister shall be allowed to make recommendations to the Minister to expand the criteria for eligibility to redress using the power provided under Section 49 of the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Act 2023.”.”
“Too many people have been excluded in this legislation and in past legislation. I cannot in good conscience support any legislation that does not seek to bring more people into the fold and to include more people. This is an opportunity. I see no reason not to accept it. It was not ruled out of order and the Minister made no case against it on the basis of costs. It was in order and put before the House despite other amendments having been ruled out of order so there was no issue in respect of costs. It is a reasonable and simple ask for the Minister to consider exercising her powers under section 49, which is within her gift. I have talked about the provision used last year. It is not unreasonable. I am interested in hearing the Minister's final response.”
“I am not talking about bringing in hundreds and hundreds of people. I am saying that, if a case lands on the Minister's desk, I want her to look at it. Then advocacy groups that have been approved by the Minister rather than being prescribed by anyone else shall be allowed to make recommendations to the Minister. This is about making recommendations - they are just recommendations and that is all - to the Minister to expand the criteria for eligibility to redress using the power provided to the Minister under section 49 of the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Act 2023. I am really disappointed with this. I am going to press this amendment because it is important. It speaks to the core of how we are going to address the people listening here and those who have not had that opportunity and who are excluded.”
“The amendment provides that advocacy groups of the time approved by the Minister, rather than by me or anybody else, shall be able to make recommendations - it is only recommendations - to the Minister "so that health services and education supports can be allocated to former residents who’ve been excluded from this Bill". That is plain English. These are people who are excluded from this Bill and previous redress schemes. It also provides that the Minister shall have the ability, rather than being mandated or obliged to, approve the recommendations made. That is simple. The Minister is still empowered. There is no attempt to disempower the Minister as regards her ministerial functions and responsibilities. I go so far as to specify that this shall be done "on a case-by-case basis".”
“That has been par for the course with every Ministry on every proposal in this House for some years. To return to the issue at hand, I looked at the Bill and said that I could not support it if it excluded people. Survivors speak about being excluded for all of their lives. The Minister had an opportunity to bring a proposal that would address the exclusions within her remit, but we do not have that before us. This amendment seeks to make recommendations. All we are asking for is advocacy groups. I did not prescribe any advocacy groups. The Minister herself made a very strong case as to the importance of advocacy groups in general rather than naming groups.”
“The Minister has given a commitment about Sage, which is important. I will monitor it and keep an interest in it. The other issue is not easy, in particular the second section that refers to advocate groups approved by the Minister. She would have been aware of the amendment because it was on her desk and would have been brought to her attention but she did not use her prerogative to come up with another amendment that would in some way reflect some of the core issues I raised in it. She only tabled one amendment to the Bill on this Stage, which we have already dealt with and supported. There were no amendments from other Opposition parties or the Government, despite some of them telling people they were looking at amendments. None of the amendments we brought from this side of the House were supported.”
“There are two issues and two amendments. I will talk about the first one. The Minister sent the letter. That is on the record of the House. I will circulate it to all the Members later. She makes a valid point about Sage. Could she engage actively with Sage to promote the service? We should at least have a report from the Minister's office once a year on Sage, provided to the Dáil. It would be very easy for that to happen. We could do that either through the committees or by tabling parliamentary questions. There are ways of flushing out a Minister to account to the Dáil if not to this House. On that basis, I will withdraw the amendment. I want to be practical. There is no point in bringing people in and out of the Chamber, having votes and achieving nothing. We have made the point.”
“4, which is doing nothing other than empowering her with powers she has but embedding them in this legislation in order that she will be able to exercise her prerogative under section 49 of the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Act to address those excluded whom we know of now and those excluded whom we simply do not know about now but may know about in six weeks' or six months' time. It is a reasonable move. I will be interested to hear the Minister's response to that.”
“4 that, "Advocacy groups approved by the Minister shall be allowed to make recommendations to the Minister to expand the criteria for eligibility to redress using the power provided under Section 49 of the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Act 2023.” I have given an example of this that was only in September 2024. We know the then Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, put his little monocle, so to speak, at the end of this and four institutions were added. We were in here talking about institutions around the same time. That certainly was not brought to my attention or anyone else's in here. We could achieve a lot here today if the Minister could commit to amendment No.”
“It is interesting that I saw the other day that there was a statutory instrument signed last year by Roderic O'Gorman through the redress scheme. It had not come to my attention but it did yesterday. I saw that four institutions in Clare, Mayo, south Tipperary and Wexford have been included in the Schedule. I do not know how they get a door opened up for them. This was dated 11 September 2024. That will come up later when we talk about section 49 and that is the piece I am reading into. Regarding advocacy groups approved by the Minister, what I am seeking in this amendment is that the Minister should have the ability to make recommendations. I am proposing in amendment No.”
“If we are talking about including people, I am not comfortable going away here today supporting any situation where people are excluded. I spoke about the farmed-out children. I spoke about the young women who were due to give birth within a matter of weeks who were slave labourers in our laundries in our city and all over this country, sons who were farmed out to farms to pick potatoes and pick stones, to live on swill and live in barns. That is shocking and that is what happened. What do you say to those people? In every situation it is always a difficulty, but are we excluding too many people? There is no one saying today there is another piece of legislation coming down the track. Yes, we realise the narrow scope of this legislation and, yes, we have to contain this to do with the redress scheme.”
“I propose that "Advocacy groups approved by the Minister shall be able to make recommendations to the Minister so that health services and education supports can be allocated to former residents who’ve been excluded". Today I talked about Westbank. I had a letter today from a senior cleric in the Church of Ireland in relation to Westbank. I thought it was really interesting. I will share it with the Minister and the Senators later. There is a lot of support for Westbank. A lot of politicians in Dáil Éireann committed to supporting them. Yet, today they are looking in and they are not supported. People who were in Bethany Home are not supported. How many other institutions are there that are not getting support?”
“It had insufficient moneys and was closing up. The problem is, does another Minister roll in here in a year's time or two years' time and say we have no more money for Sage? That is the genuine concern. To allay those fears in relation to that is what was spurring me on in this amendment. I will move on to the next amendment, No. 4, which is to support the excluded. One of the great difficulties when it comes to supporting legislation is that, at the end of the day, we will have to vote on this legislation. My proposal in this amendment is to support the excluded and I am going to speak about it, but I do not know what the outcome of this will be or what the Minister's response is going to be until I hear what she had to say.”
“It was set out to be an organisation that would support them in navigating through the mire of bureaucracy that is always associated with these systems. Suddenly, it is being pulled from under them. Will Sage disappear in a few months or a year or two because the spotlight will be off it? That is the concern. That is what the people are telling me. They are deeply concerned about the uncertainty of another support organisation. All their life they have been set up and trapped into a false sense of security, promises and hopes only for people to pull the rug and not deliver. Naturally, they are concerned about a new regime and a new change. One of the reasons cited for the Caranua wind-down in this ad, this infographic, which is date Wednesday, 1 August 2018, is more or less that it had run out of money.”
“It is about justice, it is about fairness, it is about redress, and it is about acknowledging the wrong and giving the necessary care and supports that the survivors, the affected people, need to progress and move on in their lives. One of the reasons behind my proposing these amendments was that we talked about Caranua. It is funny that this fell out of a file today, relating to applications and deadlines for Caranua. This was their wonderful thing, our new friend, this organisation that we are now winding down. What victims, people who lived in institutions and survivors of this institutional abuse say is "When can we believe anyone? When can we trust anyone?" Caranua was held out to be a helping hand.”
“In summary, and the Minster can contradict, challenge or put me right if I am wrong, Sage cannot be included in the primary legislation given the nature of how things move and move on, but the Minister is committed, there will be a review and that, as of now, it is working well and why would we change it. Ultimately, it is the prerogative of the Minster and the funding. It set a different context for me. I was not aware of how many people were working in Sage. I was not aware of the level of funding that has been committed to Sage. I have said it time and again that money is not the issue and can never be the issue.”