Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

To delete all words after “establishing a Commission under that Act;” and substitute the following:

“— calls for Schedule (11) (B) of the draft Commission of Investigation (Mother and Baby Homes and Certain Related Matters) Order, 2015 to be amended by inserting after ‘their children’, ‘with particular regard to the practices employed in obtaining the consent of mothers who had recently given birth to their treatment’;

— calls for Appendix 1(1) of the draft Commission of Investigation (Mother and Baby Homes and Certain Related Matters) Order, 2015 to be amended so as to include the following homes:Braemar House, Cork.

Ovoca (or Avoca) House, Co. Wicklow.

Regina Coeli Hostel, Athlone, Co. Westmeath.

Saint Gerard’s, 39 Mountjoy Square, Dublin 1.

Saint Joesph’s Centre (aka Saint Clare's Centre), Stamullen, Co. Meath.

Saint Patrick’s Infant Hospital, Temple Hill, Blackrock, Co. Dublin.

Saint Philomena’s Centre Lakelands, Stillorgan, Co. Dublin.

Saint Rita’s Nursing Home, 68 Sandford Road, Ranelagh, Dublin 4.

The Nurseries, Fermoy, Co. Cork

Westbank Home, Greystones, Co. Wicklow; and— calls for Appendix 1(2) of the draft Commission of Investigation (Mother and Baby Homes and Certain Related Matters) Order, 2015 to be amended by inserting after ‘these mothers and children.’, ‘Any former resident of any County Home will be entitled to be heard by the Commission of Investigation.’.”

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. As we all know, early last May Ireland was once again the subject of international media attention for all of the wrong reasons because of the story about mass graves at the Tuam mother and baby home. The coverage at the time and subsequent contributions to the debate proved to be sensational and paid little regard to the fact that what was being said and reported had a very real impact on the lives of many families. I am conscious that what we say here today, as well as what we say into the future, has a real impact on so many people's lives.

The most positive outcome of this story was that it proved to be a catalyst for the establishment of a commission of investigation. From the outset, my party and I advocated and supported the establishment of this commission in order to shine a light and to establish the true facts about what took place in the dark days of our past. We have heard stories of many barbaric practices visited upon women solely and exclusively because they had children out of wedlock. We have heard stories from this era of children who, because they were born to unmarried mothers, were treated like chattels rather than human beings. I wish to put on the record of this House my admiration for and thanks to the many survivors who came forward and spoke so movingly and truthfully and who chose to share their very personal stories so that the terms of reference of the commission could meet the expectations of the many women and children who went through these institutions. I wish to acknowledge the presence of a number of those women in the Public Gallery today.

I use the word "institutions" rather than "homes" because when one thinks of homes, one thinks of places of love and security, where people feel safe. When one listened to the women's stories, there was no feeling of love or security. I was very humbled to hear the stories that the women chose to share with us. I heard stories of siblings in the same institution who did not know they were brother and sister and of identity theft. Such stories made me realise just how fortunate I was to grow up in a loving home. It also made me realise that we, as legislators, are in a very fortunate position. We are in the privileged position of being able to ensure that the people who had to endure many years of suffering in these institutions can have their stories heard. A proper commission of investigation is being set up so that their stories will be heard, the State can apologise and those who were responsible for barbaric practices can be held to account. That is what we must do and we have to get it right.

I must acknowledge the role played by the Minister and his officials. To be honest, I was worried at the outset that the terms of reference would be too narrow. I acknowledge that in hindsight, it was prudent to take additional time to meet the survivor groups and members of the Opposition and to hear the concerns of so many with regard to what should be included in the terms of reference. It must be acknowledged that the Minister went a long way and I want to put that on the Dáil record. The Minister listened to requests that the commission be made up of renowned personnel and appointed Judge Yvonne Murphy. No one could dispute that appointment. The Minister also listened to the request from survivors that an international expert be appointed to the commission and made such an appointment. I wish to acknowledge that fact and to wish the members of the commission and its staff the very best of luck. The Minister has also ensured that there is a tight timeframe and that the commission cannot go on indefinitely. That is important because many people, because of their age, need answers sooner rather than later. The Minister has included the entry arrangements and exit pathways of single women, as well as the living and care arrangements in these institutions, many of which were so barbaric as to be incomprehensible to us today. The mortality rates, for example, were astounding. We know that infants in these institutions were 3.8 times more likely to die than those born into a loving environment. Post mortem practices will also be examined by the commission, as well as compliance with regulatory and ethical standards. The commission will also examine the entry arrangements and exit pathways for mothers and children leaving these institutions.

The Minister said that groups were systematically treated differently on various grounds including race, disability and religion. He failed to recognise that one of the main reasons they were treated differently was their marital status, which must be looked at. We have all forcefully advocated that no institution should be left out. This should be an inclusive commission. I would also urge the Minister to ensure that it is the ultimate commission of investigation. Let us ensure that no victim is left out in the cold.End of Take

I support calls made by groups representing survivors that additional institutions be included in the investigation as this would save the State money in the long run by eliminating the need for further inquiries. The most recent inquiry established by the Government, the investigation into the Magdalen laundries, was widely criticised for lacking independence and transparency, two characteristics that are necessary ingredients for any inquiry. The Minister must not make the same mistakes. He must listen to advice and ensure the commission deals with all practices that resulted in the State and society failing vulnerable women and children who were commonly known as illegitimate at the time.

The Minister has consistently stated that, under Article 6, everyone will have an opportunity to share their experiences. This issue is primarily addressed in the social history module. There is no guarantee that a request by the commission of inquiry for approval to expand its remit would be approved. With a general election set to be held in the next 18 months, the Minister is not in a position to give such a commitment as he may not be in office when the commission of inquiry's first interim report is completed. What is the threshold for inclusion in the commission of inquiry's remit? Aside from the named institutions, the onus is on victims to prove that additional institutions warrant investigation. The starting point, however, should be to believe victims. We have acknowledged the contributions victims made in meetings with Deputies from all parties and groups and the Minister. This country has a chequered history when it comes to believing victims, especially children. Have we learned anything? Rather than re-victimising people, we should support those who had to deal with State sanctioned abuse. That this abuse took place in the relatively distant past does not lessen the crime as abuse remains abuse.

I received correspondence which stated that despite the use of the flexible phrase "children's home", the Minister more or less stated it was a matter for the commission of inquiry to decide which homes to investigate. While Westbank, Temple Hill et al.will probably be included in the inquiry, the fact that several of the best known and widely used institutions have been omitted by name is a concern that could be eased for survivors in an instant by simply including the names of a number of institutions after the generic list in the terms of reference. The relevant names are listed in the amendment. The inclusion of these ten institutions in the terms of reference will be vital to address the concerns of the survivor community. Given that the institutions in question will almost certainly be considered by the commission of inquiry, why not include them now and address the concerns of many individuals who would feel an enormous sense of relief if they were to see these names listed in the terms of reference?

The phenomenon of child trafficking is not a recent one. Many children who were born under the stigma of illegitimacy, as well as others, were trafficked. Children were conveniently exported for cash, without safeguards and with no regard shown for the constitutional rights of their families. Despite the establishment on 1 January 1953 of a legal framework for adoptions, many children were removed from their families in direct contravention of the safeguards and provisions provided for in the Act. I recently met a lady who recounted a powerful story in which described herself as being fortunate to have been adopted and to have escaped the harshness and bleakness of life in Westbank. What her story reveals, however, is troubling because her adoption was illegal and contravened the legislative framework that was in place. The Adoption Act refers to consent being full, free and informed and only an option for unmarried persons. This was not the case.

The investigation begins and ends with the prescribed list of mother and baby homes. The Adoption Rights Alliance fears that this places between 60% and 70% of all unmarried girls and women whose children were forcefully adopted beyond the scope of the investigation. The decision to exclude private adoption agencies must be revisited. It is well documented that abuse took place in the adoption system and it would be best to deal with this evidence by way of a commission of inquiry. As Deputies have repeatedly stated, the commission of inquiry must be the ultimate commission and one which allows all victims to make their voices heard. For this reason, I am disappointed that the adoption (information and tracing) Bill remains unpublished, despite being promised for the past four years. The Bill must not deal only with prospective adoptions. Legislation is needed to deal with all of those who wish to have the answers to which they are entitled. Failure to introduce such legislation would be a grievous insult to the mothers and children who bravely shared their stories with the nation and would undermine and undo the positive contribution the Minister has made.

This week, I was contacted in my clinic by siblings who had vaccines tested on them as part of a clinical trial. They lived in the vicinity of a mother and baby home and vividly remember the trials being carried out. They believe the doctor in question may have wished to compare the outcomes of the trial for children living in normal homes with those of children brought up in an institution. They fear their story will not be heard and despite regular contacts with the Department of Health, they have been unable to access their records. This issue must be addressed. As I repeatedly informed the Minister when we met, everyone must be made aware that this commission of inquiry is taking place. It must be advertised as widely as possible to ensure people realise they can come forward, be treated in a sensitive and confidential manner and have their stories heard.

The single most important issue for many elderly survivors is the failure to separate the commission of inquiry from an acknowledgement, an apology and redress. While the religious and the State are both culpable, the State is the ultimate protector of citizens. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has consistently criticised Ireland's failure to provide adequate redress in circumstances of State wrongdoing. The establishment of the commission of inquiry is an acknowledgement of wrongdoing by the State. It is disingenuous to fail to make provision for redress given that redress will become inevitable when the commission of inquiry delivers its preliminary report in 18 months.

The terms of reference have come a long way from those that were initially mooted, primarily because the Minister listened to Opposition Deputies, survivors and advocacy groups. Let us make this commission of inquiry the ultimate investigation and ensure no victim is left out in the cold. The Minister has an opportunity to leave a positive legacy in this area by doing the right thing. I appeal to him to listen to the concerns expressed in this debate and act accordingly.

See this speech in context