Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to raise this issue and thank the Minister for Education and Science for being here to respond to the debate. She will be aware that this issue has been raised by a number of Deputies by way of parliamentary questions and on the Order of Business. Today on the Order of Business, three Opposition party leaders raised the issue of Ms Marie Therese O'Loughlin who is outside Leinster House on this very cold night. She has been out there for the past two months because she strongly believes that the institution she was placed in, namely, the Morning Star mother and baby home, should be included in the Residential Institutions Redress Act.

I realise that the window of opportunity is very short and that the deadline is this coming Friday, but I ask the Minister to take a final look at the two particular institutions I refer to in my Adjournment motion, namely, Bethany Home and Morning Star. I know a few others have been brought to the Minister's attention and mine as well. If the Minister decides to introduce a further order under the Schedule, I can assure her the Opposition will facilitate her fully before the end of this session. I understand the redress board has the power to extend its time should it need to.

The Minister has said she believes it is not legally possible to add these institutions. However, I again ask her to take a final look, because section 4(1) of the Act says:

The Minister may, by order, provide for the insertion in the Schedule of any industrial school, reformatory school, orphanage, children's home, special school which was established for the purpose of providing education services to children with a physical or . . . mental disability or mental illness in which children were placed and resident and in respect of which a public body had a regulatory or inspection function.

I understand the reason the Minister says these institutions cannot be included is that there was no evidence of inspection or regulation. However, I understand that a function does not necessarily mean there has to be evidence. There could, however, be a power, duty or function that did not necessarily have actual evidence of inspection. When we were debating the matter of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, there was evidence that the Department of Education and Science did not have full records. There may have been documents in the Department that could not be found when the commission was doing its work. I suggest that just because records were not found does not mean that there was not a regulatory or inspection function.

I find it hard to believe that the Morning Star mother and baby home was never inspected by any arm of the State, and similarly with the Bethany home. I believe there may have been evidence of inspection and I do not know whether any has been given to the Minister. Should anything be produced or if the Minister might be able to accept that there could have been a function, I ask her, even at this late stage, to include these institutions.

Another home that was brought to my attention was a residential one in Kill o' the Grange. I understand people have initiated High Court proceedings and were placed in this particular institution by the relevant health board. That suggests the State had a direct hand in that institution. As for the Morning Star, people moved from that institution to Goldenbridge, which is included under the Schedule. People from Bethany home moved to the Smiley homes which are included as well under the Schedule. It seems that if those institutions are included, surely the feeder institutions could be.

Two other pieces of legislation might indicate the State had a function. One dates from before the foundation of the State, namely, the Children's Act 1908, section 25 of which says:

The Secretary of State may cause any institution for the reception of poor children ... supported wholly or partly by voluntary contributions, and not liable to be inspected by or under the authority of any Government department, to be visited and inspected from time to time by persons appointed by him for the purpose[.]

That legislation, which presumably could still have been used, seems to indicate that even where an institution was not directly listed or funded, perhaps, by the State, it could still be inspected. Similarly, the Registration of Maternity Homes Act 1934 suggests that mother and baby homes could have been inspected by the State as well. At this late stage I ask the Minister to reconsider, particularly in respect of the two institutions I refer to but also in respect of any others that might be relevant.

See this speech in context