Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil fully supports the decision to establish a statutory commission of investigation into the treatment of women and children at mother and baby homes. This came about following the horrific revelations in the national media regarding the barbaric practices in the mother and baby home in Tuam, County Galway. We have been consistent in our belief that this matter should be progressed in a non-partisan way, that it be done in a sensitive manner and that the key objective must be to establish the true facts of what happened in these homes.

Yesterday, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs published the interdepartmental group report and announced the appointment of Judge Yvonne Murphy to chair the commission of inquiry. I welcome that in so far as it goes. However, I had hoped that I would be welcoming the publication of the terms of reference for the commission. We were clearly given the impression in regular updates from the Minister's predecessor that they would be published before the Dáil rose for the summer recess. Did the Minister or his predecessor actually draw up terms of reference and circulate them for observation among Cabinet colleagues? Were they shot down by the Attorney General? In any case, we are left with a situation where the terms of reference for the proposed commission of inquiry will not now appear until the autumn. For my part, I hope this is not a delaying tactic designed to give the Government time to condition expectations as to what is reasonable or appropriate for the commission of investigation to inquire into.

In his press statement accompanying the publication of the interim report yesterday, the Minister also drew attention to the issues of cost, saying the terms of reference would have to accompanied by an estimate of the costs, including legal costs, to be incurred by the commission in conducting the investigation and preparing its reports, as well as a timeframe for the submission of the commission's final report to the specified Minister. No one is suggesting the commission should be given a blank cheque. We want to see a comprehensive inquiry, however, that will bring these issues to a satisfactory conclusion that affords closure to all those who suffered and that shows people, both here and abroad, that we as a country and as a people are dealing with the difficult issues from our past.

The fact the Child and Family Agency also published reports yesterday that show the need for more resources to tackle deficiencies under its remit was a notable coincidence. There is a clear prospect now that the terms of reference will be published around the time of the budget when there is obviously strong focus on available resources. I hope the Government is not using this to diminish the scope of the inquiry. If so, the cross-party approach could be jeopardised. This should, after all, be above party politics. There has been significant goodwill and support for the investigation right across society. The Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, and other bishops came forward in support of this investigation. I hope all the religious will support it. As I said last month, international media reports over the past week have put Ireland in the spotlight for the wrong reasons. The eyes of the world are now on Ireland. How we, as a society, will deal with this issue will indicate how we should be judged internationally.

The conclusions of yesterday's report certainly give the impression there is an anxiety about the prospect of a commission of investigation. It seems more adept at pointing up problems rather than solutions. Certainly, it looks as if the commission will be limited to investigating nine baby homes. The second conclusion talks up the option of using sampling techniques with selection of examples and case studies. The issue of adoption is also downplayed although its relevance is accepted. While the commission cannot itself resolve the issue of records, this should not be used to constrain it looking into the issue.

I obviously agree with the suggestion that an opportunity for those who were mothers or children in these homes to input their experiences should be developed. The report is right to highlight the need for confidentiality in this regard. I hope that it will be as comprehensive as possible and that all those who wish to provide oral testimony can do so. Many women who went through this process and are still haunted by it have been in contact with me. They want nothing more than to have their say and their voices heard.

The final two conclusions of the report are notable for the absence of any mention of the commission of investigation. Instead, the report calls for a survey and an inventory. No one can dispute the value of such work but it should also be relevant to the commission's work. The report acknowledges its work is very modest given the scale of the records, understandable given the time involved. However, the work of the commission must not be modest.

I note some of the concerns I am raising today are shared by organisations outside this House. The Adoption Rights Alliance, while welcoming the appointment of Judge Murphy, cites grave concerns about the interdepartmental report. It points out that the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Charles Flanagan, clearly stated from the outset of this process that there was little point in limiting the scope of a statutory independent inquiry and that it was in the State's interest, as well as that of the tens of thousands of victims, that the inquiry would comprehensively deal with all matters relating to mother and baby homes. The alliance states the report appears to want to rule out any investigation of homes where unmarried mothers were either not present, such as in the case of infant homes, or not the sole residents of a home, as was the case in county homes, erroneously stating their inclusion would risk repeating much of the work of the Ryan commission to inquire into child abuse. The alliance maintains this is simply not true of institutions such as Temple Hill and Stamullen infant hospitals which handled a mixture of children destined for adoption from public and private hospitals, State-funded mother and baby homes, as well as private nursing homes.

They also say that consigning or relegating institutions such as the county homes and the Magdalen laundries to a historical survey sends a very clear message to the most vulnerable, most ignored victims of those institutions, which is that their humanity could be set aside in the past and will continue to be set aside in any investigation, lest it embarrass or financially encumber the State. They maintain that this is a discriminatory approach and suggest that it is indicative of the investigation failing before it has even started. They conclude by saying that: "If the commission of investigation is to enjoy the confidence of the adoption community, it is imperative that the terms of reference are as broad as is necessary and reflect the views of those affected most". I look forward to a response from the Minister in that regard. I hope he sees yesterday's report as a building block rather than a template.

I also received correspondence this morning from the Coalition of Mother and Baby Home Survivors. The group indicated concern on a number of matters which I will draw to the Minister's attention. Yesterday's report states: "In relation to lawful burials - as indicated in the Magdalen Report - prior to 1994 there were no conditions applying to burial sites attaching to religious homes and no onus to report or give notification of burials therein to any authority." There is concern that this looks like a blanket statement covering all burials at angels' plots and that the essential message is that there will be no investigation of burial practices. Concern has also been expressed that of two mid-sized holding centres that held babies and children only, rather than mothers prior to giving birth, Stamullen is included but St. Patrick's Infant Hospital in Temple Hill, Blackrock, County Dublin is not included.

The group is alarmed that the report seeks to dodge the issue of closed adoptions with the reference to the old reliable "legal complexities", and that the investigation will not examine closed adoptions as part of the punishment for single mothers and their children, which there is no doubt it was. Reference has been made to the tracing Bill, which is currently going through the motions and is an absolute farce. There is nothing new in the Bill; it simply puts the Department's guidelines in statutory form and copperfastens the lifelong closed adoption system in contravention of Article 7 of the UN children's rights convention. Adoptees, mothers of loss, and survivors in general will be gutted. That is appalling.

While we cannot rewrite history, this investigation, if properly framed with the right terms of reference, would have the opportunity to ensure we have an independent, transparent and factual record of what happened at the homes. This is a sensitive and complex issue and must be addressed in a calm and measured manner. Some of the sensationalist coverage that we saw initially in May and June was not helpful to those affected by mother and baby homes. However, a calm and measured manner should not mean we should lack in ambition in pursuing the inquiry.

In addressing the issues it is important to acknowledge again the hard and persistent work of Ms Catherine Corless, who was determined to get to the bottom of the facts by accessing archived materials in order that the mothers and babies of Tuam could be remembered correctly. Considerable work has also been done by historians in colleges across the country on the history of mother and baby homes not only in Ireland but across Europe. None of the work should be ignored. While the Commission will seek to establish the true facts of what happened over many decades, there is one finding we do not need to await, namely, that we as a State failed in our duty to protect the women who only got pregnant but were treated as outcasts by society. There has been little debate on the role of the fathers. They were treated very differently by society at the time. There was no requirement in law to put the father's name on the birth certificate. That was totally unfair on the women and babies. No doubt, there are some fathers wondering whether their sons and daughters are alive. The truth is that this was just as much a societal issue of the time.

I initially called for a full independent investigation to ensure the full facts could be gathered and the truth of how the homes were run would be made known. We owe it to the women. It is the very least they deserve. We must establish the truth based on the facts. The last thing the women need or deserve is the sensationalisation of what they have already lived through at the hands of their families, society, the State and religious institutions. The women have been wronged and they must have full confidence that if they wish to come forward, they can be assured of compassion, sensitivity and confidentiality and that nobody will judge them. All of the coverage is undoubtedly reigniting feelings which have been suppressed for many years.

For my part and that of my party, we believe the commission of investigation should carry out the following functions. The commission should inquire into the treatment of mothers and children in mother and baby homes, county homes and all residential institutions in which single mothers and their children were accommodated from the foundation of the State. There is a need for us as a society to shed as much transparency and light as possible on the matter. It is only in that way we can bring closure to such matters. Existing archives should be utilised and all records that are requested should be provided to the inquiry. The commission should shed light on the manner in which mothers and children were placed, and the circumstances in which they continued to be resident in mother and baby homes.

Questions must be asked about the existence or otherwise of cover for medical officers and obstetricians from local hospitals, whether there were service contracts and how such people were reimbursed for their services. The commission should hear evidence from mothers and children as to how they were treated during their time in homes: the average length of a normal working day in such homes must be ascertained, how residents were treated, what work was required of them, whether the women had access to education, if they were in locked facilities, whether visitors were allowed and whether corporal punishment was used as a disciplinary measure.

In addition, the commission should seek to establish the extent of the State's role in and knowledge of mother and baby homes and the practices within them. Did the State deliberately and as a matter of policy decide such homes were the appropriate residence for unmarried women and their children? Were explicit directions made to give effect to such a policy? What legislation was invoked to support such decisions? If the State decided either to contract out or opt out of such matters, what mandate did it give to the religious orders for management of the homes?

The commission should inquire into the role of the religious organisations in facilitating such treatment. Clearly, the commission should seek statements from all who worked in such homes. It should also seek to establish how lay staff were employed and on what basis. Furthermore, it should seek to find out the extent to which non-clergy staff were involved in administering the rules and procedures employed in the homes.

We all know now, and it was known at the time, that there was a much higher mortality rate among children in such homes. As the interdepartmental report states: "The children of unmarried mothers appear to have fared poorly, even in comparison with the relatively poor general standards of child welfare applying at the time". The commission must establish the causes of the unexplained high mortality rates. The indications are that they were 40% to 50% higher than among children in the population at large. The question must be asked as to whether medical staff were aware of the high mortality rate and how the rates compared to mortality rates in similar homes across Europe in the same period.

I am conscious that I am coming to the end of my allotted time. The commission should also seek to establish how many mothers died while resident in such homes. The issue of mortality naturally leads to the circumstances of the burial of any deceased children. It has been estimated that hundreds of infants may have been buried in the grounds of the homes. The commission should establish the number of burials. For those children who survived, the inquiry should establish the number of children adopted from the homes, including how were adopted post the introduction of the Adoption Act 1952. It must be examined whether the homes considered being an adoption agency as one of their key functions.

I made a written submission to the Minister on what I would like to see the commission examine. I and my party hope we can maintain the cross-party consensus that has existed to date. I am available to meet with the Minister for most of the summer if he feels that is necessary. The report the Minister published yesterday is useful but it should just be a step on the way. As the spokeswoman for the Coalition of Mother and Baby Home Survivors, CMABS, said yesterday: "This is our one chance - our last chance to get justice and closure. Therefore the inquiry needs to be all inclusive".

See this speech in context