Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

There were public allegations of children being neglected in Bethany in 1939 and 1940. These were investigated and rejected by the health authorities. There were suggestions that some of the complaints were motivated by sectarian concerns but it is not possible to make any determination from this distance as to whether the investigation was adequate. It is very difficult to put these matters into context 70 years later. It was public knowledge at the time and is a matter of historical fact that infant mortality rates were high and poverty, ill health and child neglect widespread. I am simply not in a position to assert that the infant mortality rate was higher in Bethany than other comparable homes or that the standard of care was good or bad by the standards of the day. In 1952, there were considerably more than 100 non-hospital maternity homes. There also were other Protestant institutions very similar to Bethany Home, such as the Magdalen Asylum for Penitent Females in Lower Leeson Street. Indeed when Bethany Home closed down, some of its funding passed on to the Leeson Street institution. The members of the Bethany Survivors Group have made it clear they are primarily seeking redress for what happened to them after they left Bethany Home and went to foster parents. I can understand this in terms of lifelong trauma. Fostering was common practice at the time and undoubtedly there were abuses. I certainly can sympathise with those who had to endure hardship, neglect and poverty in their foster families. They were not given a good start in life. However, those from Bethany Home were not alone in their experiences and the State cannot accept liability for everything that happened in families when it had no direct involvement.

The inclusion of the Bethany Home within the redress scheme was considered by the Department of Education and Science in 2004 but a decision was made that the home could 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. Subsequently, in May 2007, the Department of Health and Children advised that evidence of a regulatory or inspection function had been located and Bethany Home's inclusion in the redress scheme could 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 the publication of the Ryan report in May 2009, there was a range of requests and calls for the redress scheme to be extended. One such request was for the Bethany Home to 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. This decision meant the exclusion of a number of institutions, which could have been considered for inclusion. The Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, met the Bethany Home Survivors Group in May 2011. The Minister reassured the group that contrary to some suggestions, the religious ethos of an institution was not a criterion for inclusion within the redress scheme. While acknowledging the hurt and pain that remains with the survivors, having reviewed the papers on the home and having taken all the circumstances into account, the Minister regretted that he found no basis to revisit the 2010 Government decision and this remains the position. The Bethany Survivors Group has made it clear that its members never regarded Bethany Home as falling within the same category as the Magdalen laundries. They do not seek to be included in any compensation scheme for Magdalen women. The Department of Health has no plans to introduce a scheme of redress for those who were in mother and baby homes.

Under the Data Protection Acts, a living person has a statutory right of access to their personal data. The person who holds that data, the data controller, must provide access. This right is limited to his or her own information only. Information relating to a third party, a person who was deceased, such as a parent or a relative such as a sibling, is not covered. One could not ask about the existence of siblings as being personal information, which many people would consider to be personal to them. The sibling has his or her individual right to privacy and he or she is the only one who can access his or her personal information. If I understand correctly, the main problem is a question of preservation of records, particularly of institutions which have long since closed and where the records may be held by private individuals. The Data Protection Acts apply to such individuals but there is no legal obligation on them to preserve such records. The Departments of Children and Youth Affairs and Health and the Health Service Executive may all have a role in addressing this issue and following our meeting with the Bethany group, I undertook to pursue this matter. I am exploring which State body would be in the best position to hold and preserve such records. I have also undertaken to write to persons or bodies identified as having possession or control of relevant records relating to the Bethany Home to explore how the preservation of and access to such records could be facilitated.

In conclusion, I am disappointed that Sinn Féin has not bothered to check its basic facts. It would do nothing to enhance the reputation of this House to pass motions containing factual inaccuracies.

See this speech in context