Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Jun 2024

The issue I raise today relates to human trafficking and our ability to identify it within Ireland and the need to do so. As we know, it takes different forms. Obviously, there is human trafficking from a sexual exploitation perspective but there is also human trafficking for the purposes of labour and work, which is what we might encounter in our daily lives more commonly. As we go about our daily lives in all kinds of industries where there are customer-facing or public-facing roles, unbeknownst to us, we encounter people who have been trafficked and are working against their will. They are in an invidious situation and they cannot get out of it. While we might encounter those people, very few of us are equipped with the skills we need to identify those people.

In the context of this Commencement matter, I ask that the State provide an awareness campaign for people in order that they can properly understand the factors that can identify a person who has been trafficked here for labour purposes or for whatever other purposes. This would allow ordinary people to take the opportunity to avail of training or education or whatever it might be to equip them with the skills needed to spot the signals that can be there when somebody is a trafficked person. Would it not be amazing if a person in an employment scenario or public-facing service role could spot the signals of person having been trafficked when they encounter them? They could then go to the authorities, An Garda Síochána or whoever to inform them of their suspicions in order that the matter could be properly investigated and dealt with. We know that people who are trafficked are not coming to the attention of authorities.

By bringing this to the Seanad today, I am trying to state there is an opportunity here for the Government in circumstances where we know that this is a problem. It is a problem in every country in the world but is an issue the Minister has specifically highlighted. In the past year, we have targeted legislation that deals with this problem, which is welcome. Would it not be wonderful were ordinary people to be equipped with the skills they need to ask themselves whether that person needs help or whether there is a body that can be notified of that person or that person's circumstances in order that the body could help?

I am conscious of the report by IHREC in respect of the actions that we can take. I believe the report contains 30 or 40 pages of actions the State can take in response to human trafficking. Many of them, however, deal with specific agencies and while I certainly welcome provisions of hotlines and reporting mechanisms for people, the reality is that people cannot avail of those mechanisms if they do not know what they are looking for.

I refer to a public awareness campaign or the provision of training for members of the public and, as is called for in the report, those people in particular who are in industries in which they might come in contact. However I am talking more about the public and making available to people, through a public awareness campaign, a set of key factors of which they should be aware, that is, a set of signals and tell-tale signs in their daily lives that could cause them to pause for thought and ask themselves whether they should be saying something to the agencies or An Garda Síochána about a particular person's situation in order that they can investigate and ease that person's situation. Of course, people might be wrong and we have to equip the agencies to do what they should be doing there. But this Commencement matter is about equipping members of the public with the tools they need to spot human trafficking and report it in order that we can all benefit from its eradication.

I thank the Senator for raising such an important issue. This is something that is much more prevalent in our society than most people realise. There are people that we engage with on a daily or weekly or monthly basis who may be victims of trafficking and we are not even aware of it. It is really important that we not only reach out to victims to encourage them to come forward and that is something we are doing in a number of different ways I will outline but also that the general public can spot the signs and understand what it is that they are looking for. Whether they are made aware of those signs through campaigns on TV, radio stations, social media or otherwise, what matters is that they are aware, as this is a hugely exploitative and particularly heinous crime that preys on the most vulnerable people in our society. Those who commit this crime have absolutely no regard for the life of their victim, for their dignity or for any basic human right. It is that which we now acknowledge across Government, the seriousness of this crime and our determination to reach those people who are vulnerable, who need our help and who are affected by it and to take them out of these horrific situations has only increased.

Last year, I published a new action plan to combat human trafficking, reflecting and demonstrating the Government's commitment to preventing this crime and in particular, to ensuring that the victims are identified and supported, both nationally and in co-operation with our international partners. This is of course an issue that is transnational and we need to make sure we are working with our comrades in other European countries and working with Europol and Interpol as well.

The plan itself sets out how the cross-departmental and multiagency work to combat this will be taken forward. It includes the new legislative mechanisms the Senator mentioned, the new national referral mechanism in particular, to make it easier to identify victims. One of the things we have seen, particularly with sexual exploitation, is that women and people in general being exploited in this way are often coming from countries where going to the police was not an option for them. Therefore, they do not naturally come to our Garda.

The new national referral mechanism will mean they can now come forward, seek assistance and seek help, be it through the Department of Social Protection, health channels or other mechanisms like the organisations Ruhama, the IOM and others. Part of that, through a number of actions, is making sure that we can highlight it to the general public but also those working in specific areas where we know it is more prevalent – working with the hospitality sector, those at our ports of entry, ports and airports, and security services where people work at security in certain industries and areas where they might be able to spot the signs.

Beyond that, it is about highlighting this to the general public. We have the blue blindfold campaign, which explains and educates the different types of human trafficking that exists and how to recognise the signs. To the Senator’s point, there is an email address and a 24-7 contact line provided on the website, but it is about making people aware of that and making sure it is not something that is highlighted once a year, once a month or on particular days. We are working closely and collaborating with a number of NGOs. We are using specific events, such as the EU anti-human trafficking day and the UN World Day against Trafficking in Persons, to enhance public awareness of trafficking. There will also be development and evaluation of certain campaigns.

On where I would like to get it to, I refer to Coco’s Law, which was passed a number of years ago. When the legislation was enacted, it made it illegal to share intimate images of a person. We put a huge amount of money in and a particular focus on developing awareness-raising campaigns. We see those campaigns on our TV screens, we hear them on radio and we see them on social media. It is not just once a year; it is throughout the year. They have been hugely effective. We have seen the response where people have gone to hotline and we have seen the increase in the number of prosecutions through An Garda Síochána. It has become something that people now see and understand, particularly younger people, who it was impacting. I want us to build up the campaigns until we get to a point where people can see it and, without even knowing it, they are able to spot the signs and perhaps reach out, help a person and encourage them to come forward or go to the Garda. We are not quite there yet, but if we continue to invest and prioritise it in the way we have over the past number of years, we will get to that point.

I thank the Minister for being present this morning. It is good to have a member of the Cabinet at the Oireachtas Commencement matters in the Seanad.

I also welcome my good friend, Mr. Ciarán Delaney from Cork, who is in the Distinguished Visitors Gallery. He is very welcome back to Leinster House.

I reiterate my thanks to the Minister for coming here. I know there is much work to be done. I also wish to put on record my acknowledgement of how much she has done in this area. The remarks she just made outlined some of the progress we have made and, as she acknowledged, we still have work to do on that.

The action plan is hugely important, and the raising-awareness component of it. I agree with the Minister that it cannot be about doing it once a year and it has to be a programme that runs on an ongoing basis. It cannot be targeted only at people, for example, as the Minister said, in the hospital or security industry. Members of the public and many people in the hospitality sector and the beauty industry who are dealing with the trafficked people we are talking about would benefit from training and would want to help in that situation. Is there any indication of a timeline of when we might have implementation of all the actions within the action plan? When might we have that public awareness campaign?

I welcome what the Minister said. I have great confidence in the work she is doing in this area and I think it will bear fruit. Do we have a timeframe for when we will get on with that?

The implementation plan is ongoing, and I think this needs to be just part of that ongoing action. The final pieces of the legislation will be enacted before the end of summer. My objective, beyond that, is that we will be able to have a targeted, focused campaign. We have a budget coming up and we have to look at the available resources. However, every year since I have been in the Department, we have made sure that in the funding I have secured there has been funding to raise awareness on specific issues related to domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, and this feeds into part of that. There is a space where we could work on that. We have been working with other organisations as well and there is a capacity to build up and support those organisations that are working on a daily basis to combat human trafficking, whether it is the IOM or Ruhama. We have done a body of work with Ruhama, investing in it around “We Don’t Buy It”, a specific campaign. It is now partnering with the GAA as well, which I worked with it on, as one of its charities this year, specifically looking at sexual exploitation and how we can educate the general population and encourage people not to exploit women. It is obviously already a crime to procure sex, but we want to highlight that these are vulnerable people and mainly people who have been trafficked.

There is much more work that we, as a Government, and that this Department can do to run an annual campaign or to have something there that is consistent and for the general public. There is more we can and will do, working with those organisations to specifically target certain groups of people who we know are particularly vulnerable. I look forward to working with the Senator.

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, for coming in, in place of the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. My Commencement matter seeks a statement on the uniformity of supports for students at third level who have additional needs and disabled students, with particular regard to the National College of Art and Design, NCAD. I am raising this as a Commencement matter but I have raised it on the Order of Business. This is a matter that has been covered both by the national broadcaster and by the print media. It is an appalling and sinister case involving a talented student who was given a place on merit at NCAD and who was then subsequently failed by NCAD. The student did not fail per se, but was failed by the manner in which NCAD did not provide the supports that were necessary for her to succeed on her third level journey. This is a most egregious case. The student's mum is here today. It has caused that family a great deal of upset and trauma. I have done a lot of investigation into this matter. I will quote some of the comments from people who were involved in the case. They said that "this student was treated in a manner that I would imagine would have happened 60 years ago" and that "there was something about this student's disability that marked her out".

NCAD has a diverse student profile and the teaching staff there have in the past and currently supported students with additional needs. However, I refer to the quote, "There was something about this student's disability". I do not want to identify her but her disability was a very visible one. On that basis, it provoked very hostile "discriminatory behaviour from a university, from management." This hostile behaviour and hostile scrutiny took many forms. To begin with, she was not allowed to choose the student personal assistant. I have a son with additional needs in third level and it is a collaborative process. The funding is provided through the HEA to the college, not to the college, but to support the student. The student should have a role in selecting and choosing the person he or she works well with, in a collaborative way. I was also shocked that there were several instances in this case where management queried the bona fides of the student and queried whether the work submitted in portfolio was actually hers.

On a very important document, the profile of needs assessment or a statement of needs, a signature was forged, not by using the Adobe signature tool or by being personally signed by the student but simply her name entered as you would type it in a Word document, without her knowledge or consent. Then this sensitive document was shared, despite the GDPR rights and concerns of the individual, with wider management. People have resigned from the board of NCAD over this. The Minister has been written to but has not responded. He has not come here today. There was no action or response on the basis of it being raised by me on the Order of Business when, again, the student's family was here.

We are accountable to the people but we must also hold powerful institutions to account. A university is supposed to be a place of learning and love that wraps itself around all students. While it is not in loco parentis, it has a pastoral duty of care.

I really impress upon the Minister of State, who is a person of the utmost integrity, that he communicate to his colleague, the Minister, that he must take action on this. I will address shortly the manner in which he might do that.

I sincerely thank Senator Clonan for raising this case again on the floor of the Seanad and for the comprehensive way in which he has put this across, which is testament to his continuing personal, professional and political work on this issue over many years. We are all truly grateful for that.

As for the wider issue, as the Senator knows, inclusion is a key aim of the Department of further and higher education and skills and equity inclusion are a key part of our aspirations. The Senator raised a particular case and he will understand the process of this House. It is right, however, to provide those families with that understanding of how these things work. A debate on the Order of Business requires a debate on a particular, wider topic and a direct response from the Minister is not necessarily provided, other than agreement to come to the House to make a statement. Perhaps that will still be followed up on. In taking a Commencement matter, my role is to address the more abstract, wider issue at hand. Therefore, my ability to go into the specifics of a case or particular higher institution is limited. The Senator will understand the reason that, irrespective of which Minister takes this Commencement matter, our hands are somewhat tied in that regard.

I do not want to read out the stock answer and tell the Senator how much we have increased funding and how many more people with disabilities are accessing third level education because that would be insulting, not just to Senator Clonan but to the people on whose behalf he is raising this issue. I will communicate to the Minister the need for a response but it is important, in seeking that response, that we are realistic about what exactly that response can do or what it will lead to. As the Senator knows, ultimately, this is an internal matter for the higher education institution in question. I could speak at length about uniformity of access because I have a ten-page response here. I could speak about the aims and aspirations of the Government in ensuring uniformity of access but it would not be specific to this case or institution. The issues the Senator has raised, which are in the public domain, have been raised previously by the Senator and by the national broadcaster and other broadcasters. They require the attention of the institution in question, the Higher Education Authority or the Ombudsman. We need to exhaust all three of those avenues. The Minister will not be able to make the level of direct intervention that all of us wish he could and there are very good reasons for that, as I think Senator Clonan will accept.

I wish to accept the Senator's offer, in rebuttal, to discuss his plan as to where this can be taken forward. I am more than happy to ensure a direct reply is provided to him and the family on whose behalf he is speaking. I will also seek a deputation meeting with the relevant line Minister and officials to see what exactly can be done from a ministerial and departmental point of view. That is the next relevant step. I have to be frank, however. This is a process that will run in parallel with the internal reviews and the institution to which the Senator is referring will have direct responses to each issue raised.

I thank the Minister of State for the manner in which he addressed the concerns I raised. I will quote a letter sent from the Minister in relation to this matter, which echoes the concerns the Minister of State draws. He stated:

As you may be aware, higher education institutions are autonomous bodies and I am, therefore, not in a position to intervene on matters pertaining to individual students or relating to academic or assessment matters.

It behoves the Minister and us, as public representatives, to show moral leadership. While not commenting on an individual case per se, there should be an opportunity for the Minister to invite in the senior leadership team of NCAD to discuss this because it has been rehearsed in the public domain. It is on the public record and in the newspapers. It goes to the heart of fundamental principles about the status of disabled citizens in Ireland. Unfortunately, Ireland has a poor record on the fundamental human rights of disabled citizens. This is a matter of fundamental ethical principle. Notwithstanding the constraints around the specifics, there are general principles of huge ethical concern and great moral compulsion here. The Minister should invite in the NCAD. The Minister of State suggested having a deputation meeting, if that were possible. I ask him to communicate to the Minister that I would certainly be happy to participate in any such meeting.

Notwithstanding the very adversarial response from NCAD on this issue, it has indicated that it would be prepared to speak to me about it and perhaps that might be a way of addressing some of these concerns. It is a really egregious and sad situation.

To end on a positive note, this very talented student has secured a place at the Technological University of Dublin, TUD. I am hoping, and am satisfied that with the support of her family and of TUD, that she will succeed where she was failed by NCAD.

I join the Senator in that hope, genuinely, and I have no doubt that the individual will be successful. The Senator has highlighted the constraints and while I understand and completely empathise with the point he makes, it is important for me to address the wider context and to say why those constraints are there. While it may be maddeningly frustrating and appear to be, quite frankly, wrong in this individual case, the Government has to approach this from the perspective of every single case and not just those cases involving people with disabilities. Not every case is the same and there are reasons the Minister does not intervene directly. We have to bear that in mind and the importance of that. When I spoke about a deputation or meeting, I was referring to one involving the Senator as a representative and the individual concerned with the Minister, as opposed to bringing an individual higher education institution into that process. The Senator mentioned that the NCAD might be prepared to meet him. That would be a parallel process and would be a good idea.

As I said, I will communicate with the Minister. It is a tricky case that is very individual and very specific. Ultimately, all of us want to work to get the right resolution here and I am more than happy to play my small part in that.

Following on from Senator Clonan, my Commencement matter deals with a similar theme, namely the inaccessibility of education for people who are visually impaired. I am really glad of the opportunity to highlight issues relating to the rights of people with disabilities, particularly their right to live life on their own terms. I want to extend a really warm welcome to Ms Niamh Kilcawley and her mother, Sinéad, who have travelled here today to hear this Commencement debate. This Commencement matter was inspired by Niamh who is blind and has had to fight for every single accommodation she has received for her junior certificate. It is a critical issue that demands our immediate attention. In fact, it should have been taken care of already. We must ensure that the Department provides adequate accommodations for students who are blind and visually impaired. It is not only a moral obligation; it is an absolute necessity to create an inclusive and equitable learning environment that caters to the needs of every single student, regardless of ability. It is our responsibility to ensure that students have equal access to educational resources and the necessary tools and accommodations to enable them to achieve their full potential.

There are several issues and questions that I would like to speak about in the context of day-to-day education and the practicalities of exams. In terms of day-to-day education, the accessibility of class work, handouts and materials is important. Teachers and SNAs need to be trained in the most up-to-date technology. The importance of training and awareness of the accessibility of information and educational materials cannot be underestimated. It is the difference between getting an education and not getting one. Schools need to be given the capacity to do this. They also need to be given the capacity to mirror during school exams the accommodations given during State exams. There is also the issue of the practicality of timetables. If there is a delayed start, there must be a delayed finish. Is the CAO process accessible? Are higher and ordinary level exam papers available in Braille for students on exam day? Other important issues include rest breaks, exam timing, the time between exams, the role of the scribe and the actual exam papers, as I have mentioned. Rest breaks are particularly important. Students have to dictate all their answers, which causes significant mental fatigue for candidates. They need extra time because they have to mentally retain information as the reader calls out the questions, translate that into thought and then deliver their answers onto an exam paper. French comprehension, for example, is particularly demanding on memory.

It should be a prerequisite so that a reader can inform the candidate as to the time, as people cannot see the clock. There are issues in relation to the insufficient time. For example, at present in English and history, ten minutes extra is given to students over the course of the three-hour exam to listen to the exam paper. They may dare to have someone re-read an exam paper. The student has not met the scribe before and the scribe may not understand the student's accent or may need them to speak more slowly. There are so many obstacles in students' way. It is ludicrous to think that for subjects like history and English only ten minutes extra over the course of three hours is given to students. Ms Kilcawley has gone through an awful lot of difficulties in her life. Despite the State constantly putting obstacles in her way, she achieved the highest junior certificate results in her school. No thanks are due to the State for this. It is thanks to Niamh fighting for every single accommodation. Now, 12 months on from her doing the leaving certificate, we are here to try to pre-empt that. We need an awful lot of help to make sure that obstacles are not put in front of students like Niamh.

I thank Senator McGreehan for raising this issue. I welcome Niamh to the Chamber and it is great to see my old pal Ciarán accompanying her. This is a very timely Commencement matter. I am meeting Vision Ireland tomorrow afternoon to discuss this and many other issues relating specifically to my work with the Department of Finance on access to financial services for those with visual impairments. This follows on from a lot of work we have done with Senator Martin Conway on access to apprenticeships, particularly in the retail sphere. We have been very lucky to have some progress in this area over the past couple of months.

I will deal specifically with the status quo and a few changes that have been put in place for the junior and leaving certificate examinations. Then I will address some of the Senator's suggestions in a bit more detail.

The State Examinations Commission, SEC, has statutory responsibility for the operation of the State examinations. This includes providing access to the examinations for candidates with a complex variety of special educational needs under its scheme of reasonable accommodations, known as the RACE scheme. In 2023 the SEC piloted the provision of read-only digital versions of examination papers to leaving certificate candidates who are vision impaired and under the care of the visiting teacher service, VTS. This was in the context of an ongoing review and improvement of the RACE scheme. Read-only digital PDF versions of the standard examination papers were provided for the purposes of facilitating zooming and panning, along with the potential for users with appropriate accessibility software to adjust the colour or tone of the background and/or the text. A total of 14 candidates participated in these pilot arrangements.

Following a Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, case about inclusion of junior cycle candidates in the pilot, and having given detailed consideration to the issue, the SEC decided to extend the scope of the pilot to the junior cycle in 2024. The scope was also extended to include modified as well as standard versions of examination papers. A total of 26 leaving certificate and junior certificate candidates are included in the pilot arrangements this year.

On the first morning of the examinations, Wednesday, 5 June, there was a technical, security-related issue in accessing the digital examination paper through the SEC’s secure portal. I can advise that ten schools reported this issue to the SEC on behalf of ten candidates. The issue was resolved by 11.15 a.m. that morning. The SEC had also provided the examination papers for these candidates in traditional enlarged-hard-copy format. This enabled the ten affected candidates to take their examinations using the hard copy of the paper. Any time lost was restored at the end of the examination session.

The SEC has asked each school in the pilot to appoint a designated liaison person. The SEC has engaged with them to review what happened in their school and to apologise to the affected candidates. Arrangements will made to ensure that there is no disadvantage to these candidates. A comprehensive review of the pilot was planned, which will now include this specific issue.

An extensive range of examination supports is already available to support candidates with vision impairments but the Senator has made the case quite clearly that these are insufficient. It is not just about the range of additional services but it is the whole range of supports that apply to the entire education process, not just to the couple of hours of the examination. There is an opportunity here. There will be a review of the updates that were made for this year's junior certificate and leaving certificate regarding the issues I have laid out.

As part of that, this is the moment where we address what is clearly an awful shortfall for those who are visually impaired and have additional needs and are sitting second level examinations and accessing education. I say this from a personal point of view; my brother is head of resources in a secondary school in Wicklow and is sitting on hand with students as we speak for examinations at leaving and junior certificate level. They are, of course, the history students the Senator mentioned because that is his main subject focus.

Let us use this moment as an opportunity. The Senator raised a number of key issues. I am over time and will come back to them. Let us take them directly to the Minister, Deputy Foley, bring the involved families in and use Vision Ireland and this as an opportunity to make the progress the Senator so eloquently laid out.

It is laughable that we are piloting accessible and inclusive education. The Minister of State said things have changed and there are digital papers. We need papers in Braille. We need to consider all of our students. The current system is restrictive and there is no flexibility. Students with disabilities are not a homogenous group. Reasonable accommodations for one are completely irrelevant for another. There needs to be an individualisation of accommodation for students. That would allow students to thrive, not just survive and get by in school.

By looking at what a student needs, we can identify what is needed, such as extra time between or while doing exams. A child has the audacity to have ambition and the cheek to want to go to college and do better. We are 12 months out from the next leaving certificate. Please do not have us or somebody else standing here next year speaking about obstacles or highlighting them on television when Niamh is being disadvantaged during her leaving certificate. Not many visually impaired or blind students do exams every year. Surely the State, with all its resources, can pull together to make sure we change the system.

The Senator is correct. Only 24 children are looking for equality of access and opportunity. It is not too much to ask. The technology is evolving daily. There have been changes to what the Senator and I experienced when we did our leaving certificate a number of years ago, and we would have known individuals for whom no accommodation was made. Changes have reached a 1999 or 2001 standard, but we are in 2024 and will soon be in 2025. We have to make sure the standards are of a 2025 standard, not just for Niamh but for all of the others.

There is a review process based on the use of digital papers, as I mentioned, in this year's junior and leaving certificate examinations. That provides a window of opportunity and there is a responsibility on all of us to seize that opportunity. I will do anything I can to ensure that the Ministers, Deputies Naughten and Foley, along with the Ministers in the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, as one leads into the other, are in a position to address these situations. I will ensure that is delivered.

The site at Sean Ross Abbey in Roscrea, County Tipperary, was home to one of Ireland's most infamous mother and baby homes, operational from 1931 to 1969. During this time, 6,414 women were admitted and 6,079 children were born there. Within two years of it opening, it was acknowledged that there was a problem with infant mortality and the congregation sent a representative to investigate the cause. 1,090 infants and children born or admitted to the home are known to have died. As part of the mother and baby home commission of investigation, geophysical surveys and small-scale excavations took place at the Sean Ross Abbey site in Roscrea site. The geophysical survey took place in January 2019 and an independent inspection of the drains in proximity to the site took place in February 2019.

The investigations took place on a small section of the site at Sean Ross covering around 10% of the ground surface. According to the commission's findings, the total possible number of infants and children represented in the excavation was just 42. There was significant inconsistency in record keeping across the mother and baby homes. In the case of Sean Ross specifically, registers of burials were not maintained. There is, however, a small, designated burial ground on the site, and this is where the commission established that the confined remains of some children were located. These burials, according to the commission, were organised in terms of their layout and concentration, and the fact that evidence of coffins was located with the majority of skeletal remains. Despite this fact, the commission was only able to identify the individual remains of just 42 children. Given the spatial constraints of the angels plot in Sean Ross, it is unfeasible that the remainder of the burials occurred there and because of this, we cannot say with any certainty where the remains of some 1,000 infants and children lie.

Further geophysical surveys of the Sean Ross site, which have been undertaken by survivor groups that are independent of the commission in the years since its final report was published, have identified certain anomalies that require further analysis. The most recent of these surveys was undertaken in October 2023, led by survivor group We Are Still Here. It identified anomalies at a number of different locations on the Sean Ross site. I have had a separate survey undertaken on the site, arranged by the survivor group Bring Them Home, which corroborates the findings as they relate to the identification of significant anomalies on the site. It is my understanding that the findings of the October 2023 survey were to be sent to the Department. There has been no response so far, to the best of my knowledge, to the request that the Department would also consider its own analysis in consideration of those new findings.

In submitting this Commencement matter this morning, I am asking for an update regarding the Department's analysis of these updated surveys, the extent to which the findings depart from those of the commission in 2019, and the steps the Minister intends to take as it relates to potential further investigation or excavation of the Sean Ross site. At the children's committee, there was huge scrutiny around the scope of the burials Act, and again, under scrutiny, the Civil Engagement Group flagged many concerns about its narrowness. With regard to the Act, our fear was that the provisions of the Bill were too restrictive such that further investigation would be precluded from being undertaken at the sites where manifestly inappropriate burials were suspected to have taken place outside of the Bon Secours home in Tuam.

While the nature of the burials at Tuam differs to other mother and baby homes in a specific way, this is not to say that other sites should not be investigated further. As the Minister of State will no doubt understand, the absence of clarity and realisation that closure may continue to evade survivors and families will arouse profound hurt and compound existing trauma. Could the Minister of State provide an update regarding the Department's analysis of these new surveys, how they depart from those surveys and how we can potentially move forward in investigating or excavating the site at Sean Ross Abbey?

I thank Senator Ruane for raising this issue and for providing such a detailed overview to the House. I apologise if there is an element of repetition in my reply with respect to what the Senator has already stated but I think it is important, for the record, to state the exact context and exactly what the Government is doing and has been doing in partnership with the Senator and so many other Members of both Houses.

The former mother and baby institution in Sean Ross Abbey, County Tipperary, which operated between 1931 and 1969, was owned and run by the Congregation of the Sisters of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary. The institution came under the remit of the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes and certain related matters. The commission’s fifth interim report, which looked at burial arrangements in the institutions, states that over 1,000 children died in Sean Ross or in the district hospital in Roscrea, to which children in the institution were sent when they became very ill. The report also notes the commission was made aware of concerns about the designated child burial ground in the grounds of the institution and, on foot of this, it had decided to undertake a geophysical study and test excavation of the site.

The commission’s final report included the Report of Forensic Archaeological Investigations at Sean Ross Abbey Mother and Baby Home Children’s Burial Ground. The report found that infant human burials were located across the children’s burial ground and that these had not been impacted by any utilities or drainage works. The report notes that coffins, or evidence of coffins, were located with the majority of remains.

As set out in its final report, the commission was satisfied that the forensic report provided clear evidence that the coffined remains of children under the age of one are buried in the designated burial ground.

It noted that without complete excavation it was not possible to say conclusively that all of the children who died in Sean Ross were buried in the designated burial ground and that it did not consider that further investigation was warranted.

However, following the publication of the commission’s final report, the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth engaged with a group of survivors on their concerns that an area beyond the acknowledged burial ground, which was not part of the commission’s forensic investigations at Sean Ross Abbey, may also contain graves. The group requested funding from the Minister’s Department to undertake a geophysical survey in order to establish if there is evidence of burials in the area adjacent to the burial ground. This request was approved by the Minister last year.

The group then engaged a company to undertake a geophysical survey of the area and this was carried out in late 2023. The group submitted a report of the survey to the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. As there is no expertise in that Department to assess the report, the chief archaeologist in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage has been asked to review it. When that review has been completed, the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth will update the group on any findings and then sit down and see where we go from here.

The final part is the most important part there. The groups involved felt their analysis had been done and then there had been radio silence rather than a response to it. The insight that those with the expertise required to review the findings are currently reviewing them is helpful. Will the Minister of State relay to the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, that it might be helpful if he gave an updated timeline to the survivor groups in order that they are not waiting for information? Waiting has played a huge role for anyone who experienced institutionalisation in Ireland. They always seem to be waiting for something, whether it is redress, answers or justice. Where there is space to provide them with adequate information on the steps being taken, we should use that and communicate effectively with the groups. Will the Minister of State relay to the relevant Minister that he should update the groups on the plan and timeline of the review?

I am more than happy to do that and I will have the official correspondence sent to the Minister in due course. The main point is it is with the chief archaeologist in a different Department. I do not think any of us here are archaeologists, though I am open to correction, so we cannot put an exact timeframe on a review of a file like this, given the massive amount of work that goes into that office, with excavations, building works and reviews in many areas. When the work is completed, we will see a bit more progress. In the meantime, I will get the Minister to maybe even just make the point it is with the chief archaeologist. There is not silence and it has not been forgotten about. A lot of work and effort has gone into the issue by many people outside of government. The Government knows its responsibilities and will step up to the plate.