Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Bethany Home was excluded from the residential institutions redress scheme on the basis that Bethany was a private home for which the State had no responsibility. As a consequence the survivors have also been excluded from the statutory trust fund - the redress mechanism that is to replace the Residential Institutions Redress Board.

Clearly the State has a responsibility for the Bethany Home as it was subject to State inspections under the Registration of Maternity Homes Act 1934. In some instances, the State also made financial contributions to the cost of nursing children.

There can be no doubt that the Bethany Home is another shameful episode of our past in this State, which must be dealt with now, fairly and with respect for the human rights of survivors of what was a horrific regime which caused immeasurable suffering to women, but mainly to children.

There is evidence in abundance of the fact that the Bethany Home in Rathgar, Dublin, was a maternity home, a children’s home and a place of detention for women on remand and women who had been convicted by the courts. There is no doubt about that, so the exclusion of survivors from the redress schemes is a cruel and despicable act.

The litany of wrongs done to the people in those homes is horrific and the blind eye that was turned to it was as bad. If we see the causes of death recorded, we find that the common denominators are neglect and cruelty.

The State colluded. In 1939, for example, the deputy chief medical advisor, Dr. Winslow Sterling Berry, dismissed public concerns and even the concerns of his own health inspectors, by claiming that it was “well known that illegitimate children are delicate and marasmic” - in other words, that they suffered from starvation.

It makes one wonder about the qualifications of the same Dr. Berry to hold the position of deputy chief medical adviser. Most notable about his contribution to this scandal is that although he visited the home three times in 1939, his first action was to force the home to stop admitting Roman Catholics. His first visit to Bethany Home that year was because of reports of the neglect of children in the home and in a place in County Monaghan to which they had been fostered out. The sectarianism of his mindset is unbelievable. This so-called medical adviser, rather than protect the babies and children from the cruelty and neglect which his inspectors found, was more concerned that Catholic children committed there might become Protestants.

We hear apologists for such cruelty speak a great deal about former times being different, harder and more cruel but when this episode is examined, even from the distance of decades, it is hard to believe that this man’s priorities were so sectarian and lacking in human compassion. There is no doubt that the chief medical adviser, Dr. Berry, failed in his duty, the State’s duty, to protect the sick and dying children. I would like to read into the record one of Dr. Berry’s reports about one poor child fostered out to a woman in Monaghan. It reads:

The baby appeared to me to be in a low condition. It was dirty and neglected and sore and inflamed from a filthy napkin which cannot have been changed for a very long time [possibly more than two weeks]. As I knew the baby was suffering I had the dispensary doctor telephoned to ask him to call to see the child. The foster mother who has had nurse children under the [Children Act ] before, knows the law well and failed to register the child. The Board of Assistance should be asked to deal drastically with the woman and to prosecute.

It transpires that this woman was not prosecuted. Instead of focusing on his statutory obligation to save the lives of these children, Dr. Berry instead decided to focus his attention on the religious tensions between Protestant and Catholic organisations.

In a confidential memo for the then Department of Health he wrote that he would meet the Bethany committee, not to call it to account for the horrific conditions he found but instead “to get them to consent to put an end to this most objectionable [proselytising] feature of their work (taking Catholic children and turning them Protestants)." That was his concern, which is disgraceful. He later added a note to record that he had returned to the home where a resolution was passed at a special meeting on 27 October 1939 in the inspectors’ presence. He said this "should satisfy any Roman Catholics concerned by Bethany’s proselytising activities". The naked sectarianism of it. As long as the children were not Catholics, it seems their fate was unimportant to this State. The shame that 219 children died between the foundation of this State and 1949 is compounded by the fact that they are buried in unmarked graves in Mount Jerome cemetery, Dublin.

After two years of consideration on the matter of an apology and redress the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, and Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, jointly wrote on 23 July 2013 to the Bethany survivors group stating:

We do not doubt the life experiences recounted by the survivors of Bethany Home. The question of inclusion of Bethany Home within the residential institutions redress scheme was considered in 2004 but a decision was made that the home should not be included as the Department of Health and Children was unable to locate any evidence of a public body having a regulatory or inspection function.

In May 2007, the Department of Health and Children advised that the evidence of a regulatory or inspection function had been located and that inclusion of Bethany Home in the redress scheme could again be considered. However, as the information located identified that the home operated as a mother and baby home, it was not regarded as eligible to be considered for inclusion in the scheme. Following publication of the Ryan report in May 2009, there was a range of requests and calls for the redress scheme to be extended, one of which was that Bethany Home be considered on the basis that it operated as a children's home as well as a mother and baby home. The then Government decided against extending the redress scheme. The Department of Education and Skills advised that the Minister, Deputy Quinn, met Bethany Home survivor groups in May 2011 and had not at that time found any basis to revisit the 2010 decision. The position remains unchanged. That is an indication of where the then Deputy Lynch stood when on this side of the House and where, as Minister of State, she now stands. The State failed in its duty and must apologise for this. The survivors must be included in existing redress schemes and must also be given access to their records.

I hope it is not the case that the sectarianism of Dr. Berry and his ilk back in the 1930s and 1940s continues and that the media emphasis and attention remains with the marginalisation of Catholic unwed mothers and their children, stories which often are more concerned with the Catholic Church than the victims. There is a deficit of knowledge among the public about Bethany Home. Among the marginalised, the Bethany survivors are marginalised again. The miserly, mean-spirited offer of this Government to make a contribution to just one monument on the unmarked graves of the 219 children who died is indicative of the attitude shown to these survivors. After two years thinking about this, the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, told the Bethany survivors this summer that the Government position in relation to their inclusion in redress schemes had not changed. This beggars belief. There is no justification for not dealing with the survivors properly now. I urge all Deputies to support this motion.

See this speech in context