Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Before I begin to outline why my colleagues in Sinn Féin and I believe strongly in the serious concerns we have with this legislation, I wish to pay tribute to the courage and resilience of the women and children who suffered so horrifically in mother and baby institutions and who continue to suffer, unfortunately, at the hands of the State as they try to secure their records. I had the pleasure of meeting some people in my constituency and, recently, some people in Tuam. Their courage and resilience astounds me.

As my colleague, Senator McCallion, stated on Friday in the Seanad debate, these were not homes; they were detention centres. That was an excellent point. Innocent women were subjected to cruel practices. A home is supposed to where someone feels safe, loved and protected, not a place where someone is tortured, imprisoned and forced to give birth in the most appalling conditions, often without medical support or even basic pain relief.

One survivor vividly recalled that no doctor was present when she gave birth, only nuns, and there was no formal medical care or any kind of pain relief. Another woman retold the story of her birth and said: "When her mother cried out in pain during labour, she was told by one of these nuns that she should not be surprised as my mother was paying for her sins." I again pay tribute to these women and their families and the dedicated campaigners who have persevered for years in such a dignified manner.

A part of me cannot believe that in 2020 we are here discussing the rights and wrongs of what should happen to records and whether records should be sealed. I acknowledge the point the Minister is making and that he firmly believes that, although I disagree. Now is the opportunity, however, to deal with the sealing of the records and to bring forward any amendments to any legislation that are needed to do so.

Following all the testimonials and all the State-backed investigations and inquiries into State-sanctioned abuse, we are here again witnessing another injustice against these women and their stolen children. I am not sure if the Minister has had the opportunity to read any of the experts from the Clann project. Witness testimonies and stories of obstruction and indifference by religious institutions and State authorities are harrowing and disappointing, but tragically, they are not surprising.

Regarding tracking records, one survivor said:

I have found it incredibly difficult to access information about my childhood, my mother and my siblings. Whenever I attempted to obtain information I was made to feel that I was a nuisance. I got the impression that the authorities close ranks on you when you try to obtain information. I have been told countless times by various institutions that my records have been lost in a fire, a flood, or that the nuns are very old now and they wouldn’t remember.

Another describes how:

The information I was given was deliberately inaccurate, or misleading. I felt that some of the details I was provided were given in order to lead me down a garden path. This experience has made me very angry and I feel like I have been lied too. I do not know what to believe.

Child survivors tell story after story of hitting brick walls, many tragically missing the opportunity to reunite with their mothers before they passed away.

5 o’clock

Some tell stories of reuniting with their mothers only months before their passed. One survivor detailed that:

When the social workers finally took me to my birth mother’s ward, I walked into the room and kissed her on the forehead. I told her who I was and she replied by saying ‘I knew you would find me some day’.

She passed away a month later. That women probably hung on until her child found her. Anyone who has listened to these stories, who has spoken to survivors – and every Deputy in and Minister in this House was contacted by survivors and their supporters as their stories flooded into our inboxes last week - cannot but be moved to do whatever it takes, within our power as elected representatives and legislators, to ensure justice for abuse survivors. It is painfully clear to all that rushing this legislation and not giving these important issues the time, debate, and dialogue they deserve is another injustice altogether.

I would like to make several points about this unfairly rushed legislation. The first relates to how little consultation with survivors there has been. There are several survivor groups throughout the country and many dedicated advocates who are unanimous in their condemnation of the Government on this point. They have a very valid point. Survivors have two key asks: that their records do not go to Tusla and that their records are not sealed for the next 30 years. Is that too much to ask for these women and children, whom we have totally failed? While the Minister’s amendments attempt to speak to the alarming issue that has emerged with keeping the records in one whole archive, they will still go to Tusla and this goes completely against the direct wishes of survivors. Many survivors tell of their experiences with Tusla and their stories are not altogether complimentary. One survivor tells of how they have not “been entitled to review anything on my file held by the Child and Family Agency. They have been obstructive from the start and I have been refused access to a large amount of information". Tusla is simply not the appropriate body to retain these records. It operates legally troubling and discriminatory practices, including defining adopted people’s birth name as third-party data, and undertakes risk assessments of all adopted people who request their records. Can the Minister appreciate why there is such apprehension about these records resting with Tusla and why there is such anger? Several other organisations have the skills and expertise to properly collate and archive this extremely sensitive material. Why is it that only Tusla has been considered?

My next concern is that neither the Minister or the commission have provided a rationale as to why section 43 of the 2004 Act is not sufficient for providing a legal basis for the transfer of the personal data. We have only been told that the commission feels it does not have a legal basis to transfer these records in their entirety to the Minister. The most emotive issue to emerge over the past week is the development of the sealing of the records. I acknowledge the Minister's point but I believe, as I said earlier, that now is the time to deal with this. For many, the answers and any type of closure regarding babies who died, lie within these records. One mother tragically and so poignantly recounts how her "son was kept in a closed off area called the dying room. I begged the nuns to take my son to a hospital but they only did so after two weeks had passed". He died in hospital. Another mother does not even know "whether he was buried in a coffin ... there was never even a kind or sympathetic word spoken" to her. I tell these stories because it is important that they are read into the Official Report. It is the least we owe people. How can we stand here and tell these woman and children, survivors of State-sanctioned abuse, that there is a possibility these records are going to be locked away or destroyed?

If this legislation passes through the House, every Member who votes in favour of the Government's amended Bill has essentially held the key and locked the personal records about these people's treatment in these cruel institutions away in a vault for the next 30 years. We need to ensure that this is not rushed. We need to give it the time it deserves. We cannot allow this legislation to pass in its current form. I appeal to all Members, particularly those in Government parties, to please stand up for these woman and children and to do the right thing. We must be mindful that this law is going to have real consequences for people. We each have an equal mandate in this Chamber and each an equal responsibility to ensure that justice is delivered for these women and children.

See this speech in context