Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 14, line 6, to delete “, from time to time,”.

These amendments relate to the Government's approach to establish a separate director and office to intervene in each site rather than establishing a standing body which has the capacity to examine any known or potential site. This is a key barrier to justice for the deceased. A separate office for each site will obviously create obstacles. It means that survivors, families and campaigners will be forced to advocate for interventions at each and every known or suspected site. It vastly reduces the chances of a site ever being investigated and once again places the responsibility on survivors to seek justice.

Practically, it is also a wasteful and nonsensical approach. A well-resourced office could build up knowledge and expertise in dealing with these highly sensitive matters. It could foster relationships with all stakeholders, especially with survivors, survivor groups, advocates and family members. It would be more effective and reassuring for those affected.

This Bill is designed for the necessary intervention at Tuam and nobody is arguing against that for one second. However, we must also be honest. The only reason the site will be excavated is due to public and international pressure. The then Government and Department resisted calls until the public outcry became too loud. Similarly, that is the only reason we had the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes. This Bill is structured to ensure it is highly unlikely that any other site will be examined. It is designed to intervene at Tuam because it has to but what about the other mother and baby homes? What about industrial schools, psychiatric hospitals and other institutions that also have a deeply troubled past? Under the Bill, it is extremely unlikely that any other site will ever be examined despite all we know about the systematic abuse and neglect in those institutions.

I ask the Minister to outline the rationale for not providing a standing office which is empowered to intervene in qualifying sites. Why must a separate office be set up for each site? Does the Minister consider it likely that he will seek intervention at any other site apart from Tuam?