Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Earlier I supported activating the sunset clause in respect of the emergency powers we were discussing in the context of Covid. Many of us, with some hesitation, accept the extension of this draconian legislation, but somehow we are told that we cannot find a mechanism to extend the timeframe before we vote on this Bill. We are told it is simply not possible, yet we could find a way of extending some of the most draconian legislation this House has ever passed. We had to, but we have to on this legislation as well.

The debate last night was the most sensitive debate in which I have ever been involved. We are saying to survivors that we should take the risk of going ahead with a flawed process, and that we will put it right with other legislation later. I believe the Minister intends to do his best, but every survivor of the mother and baby homes has already been let down by the State after suffering the inhumane and cruel treatment in those homes. They were let down again and again when they tried to reassert their rights and to get information about who they were and where they came from. I hate to say it, but the truth is, as the Minister and I know, that the same people feel let down in the same way by this legislation. If we want to support survivors, we have an opportunity to do so today. The Minister can either accept some amendments or delay the process. Many good amendments have been tabled by the Opposition, and he need not accept all of them.

The Ceann Comhairle said earlier that the purpose of this debate is to try to persuade and convince and to actively listen and respond. If that is not the case, what are we doing here? What is this crazy choreography in which we dance around one another but never find any common ground? In the previous parliament in which I sat, and I understand it has a different system, all amendments were compromise amendments. I do not expect that here, but is there a rule that we can never have compromise amendments? Can we never have any meeting of minds? What we are involved in now has no purpose from the point of view of improving legislation. There is democratic accountability and debate, but we are supposed to be debating amendments. However, there is no point because the Minister has said he will not accept amendments. As other colleagues said, it is a waste of time from the perspective of improving legislation and trying to respond to the genuine concerns of so many victims. As I said last night, this is perhaps the most sensitive legislative measure we will deal with in the House.

Finally, the amendments before us relate to Tusla being a repository of the database of this sensitive and personal information. I have read many emails and spoken to many people. They are determined that Tusla should not be involved. It is not about the individuals who work there, but the bureaucratic culture and the culture of always saving the system.

People just cannot fight any more. We do not want to see these records sealed. My final comment to the Minister is only a repetition of what others have said: he should extend the debate or at least, as one of my colleagues said earlier, he should allow a free vote.

See this speech in context