Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left) | Oireachtas source

Yesterday, I received a heart-breaking letter from a woman down the country who had a baby in the 1960s. That baby was taken away from her within minutes of the birth. She was quite ill herself. When she came to and was spoken to, she was told that the baby had died a week later. There was no autopsy, no body and no closure. She is left wondering if he is out there thinking that he is the child of somebody else. We need to remind ourselves that at the heart of all this are human cases, people who have been severely damaged by the actions of this State. Who we are and where we come from are vital questions for many people.

At the committee, the Minister made the point that this inquiry needed to be timely and cost effective, which raised some alarm bells with people. While I accept the investigation is urgent because of the age profile of the people and there cannot be any more delays, it must be inclusive and it must be prepared to expand the terms of reference as it proceeds and situations emerge. We need to get the balance right in that regard and some of the groups are concerned in that context.

One of the biggest problems that has already been flagged is that there seems to be a Chinese wall being put between the investigation into the homes and the issue of adoption. It is repeatedly said that adoption will be addressed in the new legislation; it will not. Adoption information and tracing legislation will not in any way deal with the illegal and criminal activity that took place with these forced adoptions, much less hold people to account. That is one of the biggest problems with how things seem to be emerging that we need to address early on.

It must investigate the issue of illegal adoptions which were facilitated through the homes, the religious institutions and the State - in particular the Department of External Affairs, which provided passports for illegally registered children to leave this country and be given to others. We should not allow the role of the adoption board to be excluded. From what we are reading so far, there is not an adequate grasp of the impact of forced and illegal adoptions, and that has to be addressed. What is required is a truth-finding investigation that gets to the heart of things. Mr. Paul Redmond, from Adoption Rights Now made the point that it is worrying that the only mention of illegal adoptions was to kind of sanitise them by calling them illegal registrations which he said was like comparing an armed robbery to an unauthorised withdrawal. It does not take it into account seriously enough.

It is the case that much of the information in respect of Tuam and what emerged there was known. The first inquiry into abuse, the Carrigan report, was undertaken behind closed doors in the 1930s and was covered up. Mike Milotte wrote about illegal adoptions 17 years ago, with supportive evidence on all these matters and again it was well known.

I must also mention the United Nations Human Rights Committee hearing in Geneva this week, at which Sir Nigel Rodley made a point regarding the extent of the social issues in Ireland, to which he referred as being "quite a collection". That collection in many ways involves women and the State's attitude to women and their sexuality in all sorts of ways. Moreover, this continues to this day, where the State fails to deal with abortion in cases of rape and fatal foetal abnormalities. In that sense, I understand why people would have asked for an international person to take charge of this investigation. I echo the points made by Deputy Ó Caoláin and would be worried about Judge Murphy. I acknowledge the Minister made the point at committee this morning that she is the chair, that it is open to her to bring others on board and that the Minister would favour international involvement. It should be a requirement that this should be done because the United Nations has disagreed with the conclusion of her report on symphysiotomy, particularly that it did not hold anybody to account.

In the future, the question of whether this inquiry will work will depend on the level of ongoing engagement the Minister is prepared to make in working with the survivors' organisations. That will be the key in this regard. Many points have been made as to what has been excluded and obviously, the county homes and Magdalen laundries must be included, as must the vaccination trials. Thus far, there has been no mention of criminal prosecutions, of the religious orders being dealt with regarding the amount of money that was made by selling these babies and I note the omission of what has been called the second layer, in between the mother and baby homes and the Magdalen laundries. The role of holding centres and hostels must also be included as, critically, must many of the issues concerning adopted people.

In a final point, I echo Deputy Catherine Murphy's remarks on the burial and Angel plot aspects of this issue. There is no reason that memorials and these plots cannot be developed in tandem with the work being done in this investigation. The Coalition of Mother and Baby Home Survivors summed this up by stating its determination that no one would get left behind. It concluded by stating its members mean it, which they do. This investigation must be comprehensive and expandable and must be survivor-led as otherwise, there will be reports into the future.

See this speech in context