Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I am getting texts from survivors expressing their disgust at what they are witnessing being done by the Minister and the Government. They are saying how pointless this whole exercise seems to be, given the Government's unwillingness to entertain amendments. Is it not pretty damning that the people who should be at the centre of this process are disgusted at what the Government is doing? Another person, whom I mentioned earlier, asked why on earth a whip was being imposed. That is a question the Minister has still not answered, by the way. Why would it be felt necessary to impose a whip? Why would the Minister want to impose a whip? I asked this person if he felt anything else needed to be said, as his point had been made. He just said I should invite the Minister to do the right thing by resigning to make history in preventing a great wrong being done. That man, on behalf of the survivors, is asking the Minister to make a statement that he is not willing to stand over this Bill and be part of a Government that would stand over what the survivors and victims do not want to happen. Is that not pretty damning too? Those were unsolicited texts from people who contacted me because they cannot believe what is happening.

The Minister has been offered ways out of this situation. Deputy Bríd Smith and others have offered him a way out by proposing that he delete the section, which I do not have in front of me, on the imperative for the commission of investigation to report at the end of this month. If that section were deleted, it would create the space to consider this properly and give people a chance to challenge the sealing of archives. I do not know why the Minister would not take that section out on foot of the feelings of anger being expressed.

On the specific group of amendments, I heard the Minister's answer regarding Tusla. I thought about his response and whether it was reasonable. I hope he will not take up wrong because I and, I am sure, the survivors do not want to cast aspersions on the very many good people working in the Child and Family Agency. However, the issue here is the nature of State institutions, the imperatives, if one likes, that State institutions have and the pressures on these institutions to act in a particular way. They are State silos with their own imperatives and it is those imperatives that are not trusted by the survivors. That is perfectly understandable and it is why the survivors do not see Tusla as the right body. I will give an example of what I mean by that and how those imperatives can operate. I just stumbled upon this in a very topical context. A school principal emailed me with a circular on Covid-19 that was just sent out by the Department of Education and Skills to school principals. I cannot read out the exact wording here but the circular stated that if a teacher tests positive, the response of the principal should not be to call the HSE but to ring the Department, which will then arrange for a public health call that will then decide on any measures regarding close contacts and the possible exclusion of people. I ask myself why the Department of Education and Skills is interfering in a public health response in the context of the protection of children from a pandemic. Why is it doing that? The Department is doing that because it has its own imperatives and its imperative at the moment is to keep schools open. If this circular is correct, it would appear that it may be interfering with what should be the proper public health protocols regarding the close contacts of a positive Covid case. I hope the Minister understands the point I am making.

It is the same, potentially, in the case of a body like Tusla. We have seen examples and instances of that because Tusla has its own imperatives which may conflict with the best interests of the people we are talking about in this Bill and their needs, wants and right to access information on themselves and their history and identity. That is why the survivors do not want Tusla to have this role, as I see it. They do not trust the imperatives of State bodies in particular instances because they may conflict with people's aspirations, needs and desires. I think they are right. They have a right to have that concern and to suggest instead a body that is a bit further removed from the imperatives of the State and would not be influenced by political imperatives to cover up certain matters or not to do things that might be damaging in some way to the State. The survivors are right to be concerned in that regard. They are right that it would be better to have that information in the hands of a body that is less susceptible to the political imperatives of a State body and its desire to protect itself or the State.

6 o’clock

I find it amazing that the Minister is willing to allow records to be sealed for 30 years when he is not sure what they contain. He is not quite sure what information could be in there that is relevant to particular individuals, their histories and the actions of the State in the abuse of mothers, children and individuals. It is astonishing that the Minister would allow that and think it is acceptable when he does not even know what is or is not being sealed. It is quite shocking that the Minister thinks it is okay for that to happen.

I was born in a mother and baby home and my adoption was organised through St. Patrick's Guild, which is one of the institutions where there are records. I am lucky and I did not have a terrible history, but there are bits of my story about which I do not know. I might be curious to try to fill in those gaps at some point. It is possible that bits of my story, or important bits of many people's stories, could be sealed and that I and thousands of others would never have access to those bits of our identity and history. That is far more likely when some of those histories are absolutely terrible. As I said, I do not want to focus too much on myself because I was lucky. One of the people texting me at the moment went through not just one of these institutions but all of them and still has not managed to secure the information about their real identity and history. Perhaps part of that story is embarrassing to certain people.

I know bits of my own story and bits of others and some of the circumstances surrounding the separation of children from their mothers and some of the characters who were involved at the upper echelons of the State and the church are very embarrassing for them. Powerful people utilised these institutions to protect themselves from some of their shameful and hypocritical behaviour. Is that some of the information that will be sealed up? We might never get to see it but it could impact on the lives and histories of real individuals still existing who have the right to know their story and all the facts surrounding their histories and their lives. Apparently it is okay to seal that and that the Minister would not even know whether it was sealed or not. It is unbelievable that the Minister thinks it is okay that this would happen when he has been given an out. A few suggestions have been made of ways out for the Minister not to do what he is proposing to do. He should do the right thing by the victims who are out there asking him not to do this.

See this speech in context