Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy Louise O'Reilly.

I thank the Minister for agreeing to hold this debate which certainly is timely. It is important to reflect on the content of the interim report and the Minister's contribution, in which there were a number of additional points for us to consider. I will return to it.

Some weeks before the report was issued, the House debated and voted on a Sinn Féin proposal to establish a truth commission which would have a much broader scope than the commission of investigation and examine the institutionalising of women and children in mother and baby homes and various related institutions. That proposal was defeated, although most Members supported the principles behind a truth commission. The proposal and the view that the scope and structure of the commission of investigation were inadequate have been vindicated by the outcome of this report. I will also return to this point.

This is International Day for the Protection of Children in many countries. Few will deny that Ireland failed dreadfully to protect its children under the awful regime that was in place and victimised single mothers who were failed dreadfully by both the State and society. It is important to emphasise that both were responsible. There are those who will attempt to ignore the role of the State and those who will blame the State only, but both carry a portion of the guilt. People were deprived of a childhood, a family life and, in many instances, their children, an awful fate. I acknowledge the presence of survivors in the Visitors Gallery, as well as Catherine Corless who did excellent work. I also acknowledge all those who might be listening to the debate who were affected directly or whose family, relatives or loved ones were affected.

With regard to what the second interim report stated and proposed, I stated at the time that there was no excuse for the delay between receipt of the report and its publication, which was excessive. Much of what was contained in the report, to which the Minister's contributions and its proposals are perhaps ancillary, was a great disappointment. Many survivors to whom I spoke said the commission had made no findings to date regarding abuse or neglect. That was a source of pain and hurt for them. It is extraordinary to arrive at that outcome in the context of all that we have heard and the basis for the establishment of the commission of investigation. During the last debate we had on this subject I gave an account of what had happened at Bessborough Mother and Baby Home. For a period during the 1940s the primary cause of death in 20% of cases was marasmus or severe malnutrition. What can that be other than neglect? It is extraordinary. We have all heard countless stories of abuse. Undoubtedly, the people in the Visitors Gallery would also be able to tell us stories. It is not my intention to seek to question Judge Murphy's bona fides, but it seems extraordinary to arrive at such a conclusion. It raises questions about the structure of the commission and how fit for purpose it is.

The report also saw no grounds to expand the terms of reference of the commission of investigation. That is also quite extraordinary. I have spoken about this issue for some time. I have said it, as have survivors. I can also add the United Nations. Kitty Holland wrote in a report in The Irish Timeswhich read:

In its "concluding observations" report - following examination of Ireland last month - the UN Committee on the elimination of discrimination against women (CEDAW) says Ireland has, "failed to establish an independent, thorough and effective investigation, in line with international standards, into all allegations of abuse, ill-treatment or neglect of women and children in the Magdalene laundries in order to establish the role of the State and church in the perpetration of alleged violations".

The terms of reference for the commission of investigation into the homes, "is narrow such that it does not cover all homes and analogous institutions [and] therefore may not address the whole spectrum of abuses perpetrated against women and girls".

That is consistent with the point I made during that debate. I welcome the Minister's remarks about the scoping exercise. That is welcome and important and I look forward to engaging with her on it. Where we should be focusing with regard to the terms of reference is on engaging with people on the basis of their experiences, not on a list of institutions. As that approach has failed, we must engage with people on the basis of their experiences to ensure all survivors and all those who had abuses perpetrated against them in the institutions can be included. That is a welcome step and I am glad that the Minister has stepped beyond the restrictive position stated by the commission.

One of the recommendations made by the commission was related to redress. While redress is far from the full picture, it is right and appropriate that it be considered. I was deeply disappointed when the Minister and the Government flatly rejected it. It was simply ruled out that the survivors could be included in the residential institutions redress scheme. That was wrong and it was a severe blow, particularly to the survivors who had been excluded from previous schemes such as those of Bethany Home, Westbank and various other institutions.

I note that the drawing of artificial distinctions between institutions is still being fought. This afternoon the High Court has ruled that the refusal of the Department of Justice and Equality to admit two residents from An Grianán to the Magdalen scheme was in breach of fair procedures. The Government is still fighting women on their right to redress because of artificial distinctions. The women in question were in the industrial school located on the grounds of a laundry. They had worked in the laundry but were denied access to the redress scheme. That is wrong and I congratulate the two courageous women who took the case and their legal team. It is a significant decision which will have ongoing implications for the administration of the scheme and, perhaps, future schemes. I hope it will inform the Government's policy and attitude.

I will comment briefly on the current position. There are a number of things which are welcome, for which I commend the Minister. They include the special rapporteur and the technical team under Dr. McCullagh. That is important, but there is no reference to the Garda which must be part of this process. It is a distinct possibility that the site in Tuam was the scene of a crime and that should not be discounted. The Garda should, therefore, be part of this process. In addition, the Minister has given a commitment to have a model of transitional justice. The European Union's policy framework for transitional justice, in a section entitled, Providing recognition and redress to victims, states:

Transitional justice includes an acknowledgment that victims have been harmed. To recognise the suffering alone is however not sufficient. Rather, it must be acknowledged that victims are holders of rights who are, inter alia, entitled to an effective remedy and adequate reparation. Post-conflict or post-transition processes need to ensure that victims are not re-victimised or re-traumatised.

Does the Minister believe the approach of the EU framework is correct and will she follow it? In that context, will she consider the question of redress?

There are a number of other points I would like to make, but I am running out of time. My last point, which was touched on in regard to the communications process, was that the Minister, at the time of publication, committed to meeting survivors and hearing their response, experience and views on how best to move this forward. In addition to engaging in this new process, she should meet a delegation. The next Taoiseach, whoever that may be, should also take the opportunity to meet survivors. That would be valuable and welcome.

I have outlined a number of criticisms I have regarding the report and some of the disappointments. There are aspects that are welcome but we have to go much further. Expanding the terms of reference should be the absolute minimum. We must do much more to satisfy the desire for truth and justice among the survivors.

See this speech in context