Ms Mary Lou O'Kennedy:

Oak welcomes the opportunity to appear before the committee to discuss the provisions of the general scheme of the BillWe are thankful to the committee for extending to us the invitation to attend. We do so very much from the perspective of the 561 survivors who participated in the consultation process undertaken by us with them in March 2021. We acknowledge and thank all those who took the time to participate in the consultation process, which, for many, reopened painful memories and feelings.

In considering the provisions of the Bill, the greatest disparity we discern between the provisions of the Bill and the views of the survivors relates to eligibility. Survivors overwhelmingly asked for a universal common experience scheme that recognised all survivors, regardless of duration of time spent by them in the homes. However, eligibility for financial redress is provided for in the Bill for all mothers regardless of duration of residence, but only for survivors who, as children, spent more than six months in the homes. The Bill also uses duration of stay as a determinant for eligibility for an enhanced medical card for both mothers and children and, similarly, it will be provided only to those who spent more than six months in a home.

The survivors described the nature of the harms they experienced for which reparation is needed. The Bill provides for a general payment of redress for unspecified harm, trauma, discrimination and stigma experienced by mothers and children while resident in the homes. The survivors, however, identified at least 17 different harms suffered by them, many of which have lifelong negative consequences. The primary harm described by them is the involuntary loss of the mother-child bond they suffered, but this is not recognised in the Bill.

Similarly, when considering financial recognition, survivors believed that a universal common experience payment was the most suitable form of redress, but with an additional 12 categories of claim identified, and that an initial interim payment of €15,000, on average, should be paid immediately. The Bill provides a general payment starting at €5,000 for mothers who were resident for up to three months and €12,500 for children resident for at least six months, with only two additional categories of claim, which are confined to lengths of stay in the homes and periods of work in excess of three months undertaken by mothers or pregnant women without pay.

The survivors stressed the importance of a human rights-based approach to the design of the scheme and, in particular, the need for accountability, truth-telling, identification of harm, participation, inclusion, equality, apology and restorative justice, all of which provide greater opportunity for healing. The eligibility and financial payments provisions of the Bill are, however, evidently based on a rights-based approach, operating within the current statutory framework of entitlements and, in particular, those applying to the residential institutions redress scheme and the Magdalen restorative justice ex gratiascheme, which, similar to what is recommended for this mother and baby home scheme, comprises a general payment based on length of stay and a work-type payment rather than on the particular human rights violations and common experience of harms particular to the mother and baby homes survivors, the main defining feature of which is the loss of the mother-child bond they suffered. Nowhere in the Bill or the general scheme is this recognised.

Other key concerns identified by the survivors that are not provided for in the Bill are listed in my written submission. In light of the time constraints, I emphasise in particular the option of financial payment by lump sum, periodic payments or enhanced pension payments and the provision of trauma-informed counselling or psychotherapy beyond that of the counselling services currently provided by the HSE national counselling service for survivors and their family members. There should be provision for a medical card equivalent to that granted under the Health (Amendment) Act 1996, as well as supports additional to those provided for in the Bill.

As regards the application, delivery of the scheme should be by trauma-trained and experienced staff. In terms of administration, a personal liaison advocate, social worker or adviser should be available to assist each individual with applications and to provide the necessary emotional and practical support they need. There should be no cut-off date or period for the duration of the scheme because many survivors do not have access to records and may not be aware of the circumstances of their birth. As such, it may take time for them to become aware of their eligibility for the scheme.

Our written submission provides summary tables of all of the key requests made by the survivors and the extent to which these are provided for in the Bill, with a commentary on each. Although our opening statement focuses on the issues not provided for within the Bill as it currently stands, that is not to ignore the amount of work and attention by the Department in the context of providing for the needs of the survivors. We make our observations with the intention of continuing to represent the needs of the survivors as expressed by them in a way that will enhance the scheme. I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear and for listening to my statement.