Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This is not historical, unfortunately. I have friends and neighbours who were in mother and baby homes. It is an issue of which I am keenly aware and I know they are watching. One survivor speaking to the Clann project about conditions in the mother and baby homes stated:

My birth mother was allowed to see me just once a day for an hour each day after my birth when the babies were brought in to be fed. The mothers were actively prevented from bonding with their babies.

On infant deaths, a survivor stated: "I do not even know whether he was buried in a coffin. There was never even a kind or sympathetic word spoken to me". I quote these testimonies as a reminder to us all of the dark days in the State's past when not all of the children were cherished. I read out these testimonies because they should be heard and not locked away.

I am conscious this is a very emotive topic and that many of those watching today will have been directly or indirectly affected by the State-sanctioned abhorrent treatment of women and children by religious orders in these institutions. For those who provided testimony to the commission I am sure it was a very personal and difficult process for them and their families. I thank them for undertaking this important and, I am sure, painful task. They have performed a service for all of our citizens, young and old. Their personal stories are part of our history and we must embrace and learn from our history, and the good, bad and appalling aspects of it.

A constituent in Limerick with whom I spoke today described the ordeal she faced during her year in one of the institutions. She was sent to the Sean Ross Abbey institution in Tipperary. On arrival she was given a false name. She knew no one. She was worked and punished and had her baby taken from her. She was forced to work in the laundry while heavily pregnant. At the birth, her family was telegraphed to say she was dying. When she had the temerity to ask what she had done to deserve this, the answer she received was that she had committed a sin. In their eyes she was a sinner. Is she not entitled to her records?

Another woman I spoke to, my former neighbour in Ballynanty where I grew up, Ann O'Gorman, and I use her name because she asked me to, spent time in Bessborough. Ann gave birth in the summer of 1971 at Bessborough. She heard her baby cry but she passed out and when she awoke three days later she was told the infant had died. She asked whether she could see where her daughter was buried but she was refused. There are three things she would like me to raise with the Minister. She does not want the history of Bessborough to be forgotten; she wants the site to be preserved and not built upon; and she wants the unmarked graves to be recognised even if it is by a simple bench.

Another woman to whom I spoke recently, and who has become a very good friend of mine, is Teresa Collins. She was in Sean Ross Abbey and she has also asked me to use her name. When Teresa was returned to her grandparents they paid £100 to get her back. She also has a number of questions that she would like answered. Why separate the files when they should all be kept in a single archive? Obviously, those who wish to keep their files private should have the right to do so.

In an investigation by the order of nuns it was claimed there were 296 dead children at the Sean Ross Abbey but through a freedom of information request by a journalist, 1,024 birth certificates were discovered. Where did all these children go? Where is the paper trail for the moneys that passed through Sean Ross Abbey? Where did the money go? These are the questions these people want answered.

We have an opportunity, even at this late hour, to correct a further wrong before it is committed. The Minister is trying to ram through the Bill with the most spurious of explanations. He said the requirement for pre-legislative scrutiny was waived by the Business Committee of the House at his request. I am sure it was the Government's request. The Minister maintains that sealing the records is necessary on technical data protection and legal grounds. The Minister is entitled under GDPR and the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 to take custody of all of these records. This and the Data Protection Act provide that archiving purposes in the public interest is a lawful ground for processing personal data. It looks as though perhaps the Minister is being thrown under the bus. Is that by his partners in government or the Attorney General? I plead with him, even at this very late stage, to do the right thing and withdraw the Bill.

See this speech in context