James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies for their contributions to the debate on this motion. I acknowledge the constructive input of Deputies on all sides in assisting the Government's consideration of these sensitive issues. I am sure the commission of investigation will be keen to get all the information that has been gathered by the local committee in Tuam, which was mentioned by Deputy Connaughton. I will be very happy to meet the members of that committee. I would like to state my personal appreciation of those who have shared deeply personal accounts of their experiences with me. I hope they continue to find the resilience and courage to assist the commission in establishing the truth of what happened.

The valuable work that has been carried out by a number of historians and advocacy groups has informed public debate on this issue. In particular, I commend the research undertaken by Ms Catherine Corless, which brought these matters to public attention. I share her desire to have the dignity of deceased children who lived their often short lives in these homes respected and recognised.

The motion before the House deals with the arrangements agreed by the Government on 8 January 2015 in respect of the establishment of a commission of investigation into mother and baby homes and certain related matters. This debate is about much more than the arrangements for an investigation. It is an opportunity for us, as a society, to start to acknowledge and address the often harrowing manner in which women and their children were treated in mother and baby homes, how they came to be there in the first place and the circumstances of their and their children's departure from these homes.

I would like to deal with one matter before I respond to the issues and amendments raised by Deputies in the course of this debate. The draft order defines "single women" as pregnant girls or women and mothers who were not married, as the phenomenon of mother and baby homes was to address the needs of unmarried women who became pregnant. I am aware that a small number of women who were widowed, or who were married but no longer living with their husbands, may have spent time in these homes in order to receive sheltered and supervised antenatal and postnatal care. There is no suggestion that the treatment experienced by these women differed in any material way from that of women who had not married. I am satisfied that the terms of reference allow the commission to fully investigate these experiences and to make any findings and recommendations it feels warranted in relation to this group of women.

However, for the avoidance of doubt and as I outlined in the Seanad yesterday, I will make a small amendment to the definition of "single women" to include widows and married women living separately from their husbands explicitly.

I am disappointed that Deputy Anne Ferris feels she cannot put her name to the motion approving the terms of reference. In the wake of their publication, the Deputy expressed certain concerns. We met to discuss those concerns a few days ago and painstakingly worked through each to provide reassurance. Yesterday, the Government deemed it appropriate to make a technical amendment in response to one of those concerns. Accordingly, we will make a change to a definition to ensure that it is explicit that the investigation of mother and baby homes will take account of women who were unmarried, widows or married but separated.

The Oireachtas was clear that the focus of this commission of investigation was on the treatment of women and children in mother and baby homes. The commission will investigate such homes, covering an 80-year period. It is an enormous amount of work. This focused investigation is likely to produce information and evidence of profound value. The Government is satisfied that to characterise institutions such as orphanages as mother and baby homes would dissipate the commission's focus in a manner that would make an already mammoth task so dilute that the very answers we seek for those at the centre of this work - mothers and babies - would be unattainable. I recognise that Deputy Anne Ferris is disappointed that the Westbank orphanage is not included, but the decision supporting this position has been considered at length and has the Government's support. Nonetheless, Article 6 will allow the commission to hear the stories of those who were in those orphanages and to make a further determination as to what recommendations to make to me. The commission is due to make a recommendation after 18 months on the social history module, but it is open to it to make recommendations at any time. It is also open to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs to request an interim report at any time.

Deputy Anne Ferris mentioned the Miss Carr's home. There was a number of Miss Carr's facilities. The one included in this investigation comprises the flatlets at 16 Northbrook Road. Others were not included. We are satisfied that this home should be included because it shared similar functions with the others listed in the appendix. I know that it is very difficult for the Deputy, but my sincere hope is that she will afford the commission the opportunity to do its work and thereby perhaps see that some of her concerns are not founded.

Deputy Naughten raised issues concerning vaccine trial records and wondered whether the commission would have the power to compel them to be made available. The commission has all powers to compel vaccine companies and others to appear before it as well as to compel the production of documents.

Deputy Boyd Barrett mentioned a number of issues. They can be included in the social history module, which is different from any other, in that it is backed up by the commission's powers to compel people to produce evidence. The module will be a key focus of the commission's work.

This debate has demonstrated the complexity of these issues and the degree to which society turned a blind eye. I have listened to the contributions of Deputies and the issues raised emphasise the challenge of seeking to define the wide range of public concerns in this investigation. I am satisfied that this independent commission has sufficient scope to examine many of these concerns, to make a determination on their relevance to the central issues in question and, where appropriate, to make any recommendation to me that it deems necessary. In this regard, I draw Deputies' attention to the provisions of Article 6, which allows the commission to make recommendations on any matter that it considers may warrant further investigation in the public interest. It may do so at any time in any of its reports. In particular, on completion of the social history module, the commission is required to report to the Minister on any matter not included in the existing scope that it feels warrants further investigation as part of its work. I hope that this provision will reassure those who feel that the process to date has not fully uncovered information relevant to their specific circumstances.

A number of Deputies have tabled amendments seeking additional matters, particularly additional institutions not listed in the appendix of mother and baby homes, to be included in the text. I do not propose to accept the amendments sought, but I will comment briefly on some of the issues raised.

The draft order before the House reflects a clear and deliberate emphasis on mother and baby homes. I want to ensure that the critical focus of this investigation is on the experiences of women and children who spent time in these homes. The State has never before brought such investigative power to the issue. The women and children affected deserve such a focused approach.

The Government has identified the 14 institutions on the list on the basis of the application of clear criteria. That is not to deny the harsh conditions experienced by many, particularly vulnerable women and children, in other settings over the course of our history. At least one of the institutions listed in the amendments is already prescribed in the appendix. It is important to reiterate that religious ethos or private status did not feature as a criterion in the examination of relevant institutions.

See this speech in context