Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Sherlock for tabling the amendment because otherwise we would not have been able to discuss many of the amendments we had hoped to discuss. I also want to speak to amendments Nos. 24 and 25, which are in this grouping and were tabled by Deputy Ward and me. My position has been on the record for months, if not years, since we started discussing this. Often when we talk about this subject people will rightly say it is not possible to place a price on the human rights abuses and everything else people went through. That is 100% correct. It is very difficult to know how we can even start to address the wrongs that were done to people, particularly some people who are still looking for children who were taken from them. Some 50 years later one person is still looking for her son. I cannot understand how we have not been able to find some avenue or mechanism to help her to find that person who is now an adult in their 50s. That always comes to my mind whenever we are discussing this situation.

One thing I know for sure is that we should not start by excluding anybody.

It is very wrong to exclude people on the basis that they did not spend six months in the homes. That is crazy. Someone who was in a home for five months could be excluded while someone who was in one for seven is included. It beggars belief. I cannot get my head around how you could start by excluding anybody. That is a really serious flaw in this legislation and I will argue for it to be changed until the Bill is passed. Many other people agree with me. It is really wrong because it also creates division among survivors. Obviously, some of the people involved are elderly and have significant issues or difficulties. They really want to be able to access this money but they feel torn because they know that many people are going to be left out. That is one major issue.

I am glad that we have Deputy Sherlock's amendment in order that we can at least discuss this issue. I hope the amendment will be accepted. It calls for a report six months after establishment. There is no harm in accepting an amendment to say that we should look at this. In its proposed section 2(2)(a), it raises the issue of other institutions and the question of "whether and to what extent persons engaged in the management, administration or operation of relevant institutions should be permitted or required to contribute to the cost of making payments". That is another issue. The matter of certain religious institutions and pharmaceutical companies not paying their fair share bothers all of us, including the Minister. That is what I want to say with regard to amendment No. 1, which we totally support. It covers everything we wanted to say in other amendments that were ruled out of order.

I will now speak to amendment Nos. 24 and 25 because they are also in this grouping. Amendment No. 24 is an amendment to section 42 and reads:

In page 31, to delete line 16 and substitute the following: “(a) as soon as possible after the second anniversary of the establishment day, but not exceeding six months, and”.

This amendment and amendment No. 25 are linked and seek to ensure a review of the payment scheme between two years and two years and six months after establishment. This will allow for the documentation of any issues with either the management or administration of the payment scheme and for them to be identified and remedied within the lifetime of the scheme.

Amendment No. 25 is a kind of follow-on. Obviously, the language changes as legislation is amended. It is the same. It calls for the review to be undertaken "as soon as possible after the cessation date, not exceeding six months." The crux of everything I want to say today while we are discussing this is that I fundamentally disagree with excluding any survivor from the mother and baby institutions. The scheme should also cover all of the institutions, not just those examined by the commission of investigation, and all of the children who were boarded out. I will also again mention the pharmaceutical companies and religious institutions, which we can mention thanks to Deputy Sherlock's amendment No. 1.