Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy Pringle.

I wish I could say I welcome the opportunity to speak to this debate but "welcome" does not come to my mind. I feel nauseated at the language being turned on its head, the same language of "It is for your own good" that was used to put people into these homes and so on. I listened carefully to the language used during the debate and have tried desperately not to be personal, although I do have a personal connection with a home, which I will not go into, and I have acted professionally. I have been part of the operation of the redress scheme that made it an offence for me to disclose, as a former barrister, or for the person to disclose what he or she received under the scheme.

I have read all the reports. I have read the McAleese report and the Ryan report almost in their entirety, which is very difficult. Twenty-one years after the then Taoiseach apologised, it is time for us to grow up and to stop talking about the "vulnerable" women. They were not vulnerable; they were strong, vivacious women who were made vulnerable by the system and demonised by the system. One of the reports I read, which I will return to, is an interdepartmental report that was the basis for the formation of the commission. It referred to the women "hiding away". They did not hide away; they were hidden away by a society that would not deal with sexuality, abuse, rape and many other issues. Let me preface my remarks with that and by saying I will do my best not to be emotional, not because it is wrong to be emotional but because I have the privilege of having a voice, while those I speak for do not.Those who died at the Tuam mother and baby home, some of whom I was related to, did not have that privilege. I have that privilege and will do my best to live up to it.

I have examined the Bill with the help of the staff in my office and pay tribute to them, as I do to the Oireachtas Library and Research Service. Having looked at the Bill, I wondered what is its purpose of. When I read it, along with a copy of the Minister's contribution, which I am sure he did not write, and the briefing, they are a perfect example of obfuscation and of a system closing in on itself to protect the system, not the people it is there to serve, and certainly not the survivors. While "survivor" is not a word with which I am comfortable, I will use it because some people are comfortable with it.

The Minister talked about urgency. This is a new version of Grimms' Fairy Tales. On 30 October, the records will suddenly go into a rotten pumpkin or something. Is that correct? I do not know. They are going to turn into something the Minister has not explained. Deputy Bríd Smith referred to this. At no point has the Minister explained to me the urgency of this.

As the Minister will be aware, the commission was established prior to my time as a Deputy, in 2015. Deputies have asked where the date 30 October has come from. It has come from the seventh interim report, a very brief report. It was the Minister's duty, and that of the officials in the Department, to explain all this to us in order that we could grasp and understand it, and see whether we could assist him or table proper amendments. Before I go into the detail, I note it is absolutely appalling that pre-legislative scrutiny has been waived. To say the Business Committee took that decision is nothing short of misleading the House. The Government did that, with its majority on the committee. This is one particular item of legislation where we have been given a golden opportunity to learn from our mistakes and from the fact that the documents from the Ryan investigation were locked away. The McAleese investigation documents were given back, as noted by Deputy Naughten.

The Minister stated people have mixed up two issues, and they have; I will concede that and will return to why. Deputy O'Gorman, however, has led that in his role as Minister. He has led the misinformation and the confusion. Nobody was able to say where the date came from and I did not hear it explained in the Minister's contribution. The seventh interim report was the seventh time the commission of investigation asked for an adjournment or a revised timetable, and it was given until 30 October. The commission requested it and the Government once again gave it. I have been particularly hard on the commission in respect of the delays, but having read all the documents, I apologise. It has had to cope with so much documentation, delay and obfuscation on the part of various bodies that were not giving it material. I apologise to it, therefore, on that account.

As for the sixth report, the Minister has utterly failed to tell us where it is.

Why is that important? It is because that is the one that appears - I say "appears" because I do not know - to deal with the issues we are faced with here with no information. The press release for the sixth interim report from the Minister's predecessor states:

The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Dr Katherine Zappone, has today (14 February 2020) [How ironic is that date of 14 February?] confirmed that she has received a Sixth Interim Report from the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes. Although it is a short report it nonetheless raises complex issues related to the completion of the Commission’s programme of work.

Most significantly, because the Commission is required to transfer its records to the Minister and deal with third party legal costs prior to submitting its final report, the Commission has requested an extension of time[.]

The extension of time requested was given until 26 June. Will the Minister tell me why that report has not been published? Why have we not seen that report on complex issues, most significantly, the transfer of records? Is that not the most minimal piece of information that should be before us if the Minister wants to work cross-party and if we are truly here for the good of the people who survived mother and baby homes?

The other five reports are also interesting because they show the lack of bona fides of all Governments since this was commissioned. The first report was fairly basic and sought an extension of time. The reasons are interesting and have a direct bearing on what we are talking about now. A large volume of new information was coming to light. This was in July 2015. The commission was set up in February 2015 and, a year and a half later, a significant volume of new information was coming to light. Something that really surprises me is that the commission was taken by surprise at the unexpected interest, as if it was not aware that there was a prior redress commission for which 15,000 people came forward.

The second interim report is equally interesting. The commission explains that it needs another extension of time and raises a number of issues. It notes an agreement between an unidentified local authority and a home and it talks about vast quantities of information and the unjust exclusion of unaccompanied babies or children in mother and baby homes from the existing redress at the time. It points out to the Government that this is wrong. It does not use the word "wrong" but it says it cannot justify it. To be precise, I will read a little extract, where it states "The main issues addressed here are: the exclusion of some children's homes from the Residential Institutions Redress Scheme [and the] exclusion of some mother and baby homes from the remit of this Commission". On that specific second issue, the commission considered that it was not logical to include, for example, St. Patrick's and not include the other mother and baby homes. That is in relation to the homes that were excluded. Then it goes on to say that equally, in relation to the children that are excluded, there was no logical reason for excluding children who were unaccompanied from the redress because they were in the exact same position as the children who had attended the industrial schools.

It was brought to the Government's attention. I am not sure if the Minister has had a chance to read it and I feel sorry for him with the volume of stuff he has to read but this was provided on 16 September 2016. The Government chose to ignore that as well but it was on notice that there is a vast volume of material.

The third interim report is interesting because again the commission asked for an extension of time and it goes into the issues. The report states, "While there are detailed death records available, there are significant gaps in the information available about the burial of babies who died in a number of the institutions under investigation." The report mentions the word "gaps" more than once. Then we have this very interesting report, which I will not go into because I have not time, namely, the fifth interim report, which also sought extra time and quite justifiably so. The commission deserved and needed this extra time to do justice to the vast volumes. I will provide a number of quotes. It states, "There can be little doubt that most people will find the arrangements made for anatomical studies prior to the 1970s distasteful at a minimum." That is where bodies were sold to third level establishments. It notes "major issues about burials arise in the cases of Bessborough and Tuam". Private burial grounds were not regulated. It goes on to state "The [most] difficult question to answer is why the children were 'buried' in such an inappropriate manner." In one of those reports, the commission sought to clarify a point because it was said the children and babies were buried in a sewage tank in Tuam. It saw fit to correct that and to tell us that in 17 of the 20 chambers, extensive human remains were found and it could not be ruled out that they were used for sewage treatment at some stage. That information and a draft report was sent to the county council and the Sisters of Bon Secours. On both occasions that the country council got draft reports and a question, it chose not to answer, even though it was the owner of the mother and baby home and the Bon Secours sisters simply operated it. The response of the Sisters of Bon Secours was to commission their own expert to look at the burial chambers, not in situ, but at the report that had been done by the commission in order that they could say that proper consideration had not been given to the possibility that these sewage chambers could have been put up as crypts. Can the Minister imagine that? The commission came back and said that, having looked at them, there was no way that these were burial crypts.

That is the background. Why has the sixth report not been published? Why has the Minister come in with a Bill? He has the authority under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004. Section 43 of that Act, on the dissolution of commissions, is interesting. It states:

...a commission is dissolved on the submission of its final report to the specified Minister.

(2) Before the dissolution of a commission, the chairperson or, if the commission consists of only one member, the sole member shall deposit with the specified Minister [ that is the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, presumably] all evidence received by and all documents created by or for the commission.

There is no mention of redaction. All evidence and all documents go to the Minister.

There are many other provisions in respect of privacy, which was copper-fastened in the terms of reference as well. As privacy is looked after in the sense of anonymity, I have no idea why that is an issue. The terms of reference specifically provide for it and so does the grounding legislation.

The final report is to be given on 30 October and the Minister says he cannot ask for that because that is an independent commission and it is up to the commission to make a request. I am not sure about that and, if that is the case, I am not sure what interaction the Minister has had with the independent commission to be able to come before us and allow an extension up to February of a commission that is dissolved on 30 October, when all the documents become pumpkins, and a commission that will stay in being at the same time. Can the Minister imagine how contradictory that sounds? It is in being and it is not in being.

I have no idea why this was necessary, except to give documents to Tusla. In the briefing, I asked the Minister what preparation Tusla has made for the reception of these documents. He said there would be a regulatory impact assessment to be carried out or some type of assessment. Can the Minister imagine it has not been carried out yet, even after all these years? Prior to that, an interdepartmental report was produced. I have read it in detail as well and it highlights the vast volumes of documentation that were extremely important in the context of having an archive.

The Minister has mentioned nothing about the protection of information under GDPR, under the 2018 legislation or under the directive under which that legislation was introduced in Ireland. The Minister cannot hide things away. Finally, the Minister is right that this legislation is not about the 30-year timeframe but he is disingenuous in saying that, because it is totally based on the 2004 Act and the National Archives (Amendment) Act, which are about the 30-year timeframe. I would like to go on but my time is up.

See this speech in context