Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Sinn Féin for putting forward the motion. I supported and put my name to the motion on the basis that the idea of dividing people has come across very badly with survivors. In the past week, I have spoken to a number of survivors about the redress scheme. They are disappointed because they all came into this together, told their stories together and bared their souls in public and private to tell people what had happened to them. They did not do it for any reason other than wanting to get, first, an apology from the State and, second, recognition for what they had gone through.

As one of the survivors said to me, the first six months went grand and then it turned after that. One day in one of these homes could have caused somebody as much trauma and anguish and left as big as mark as it did on somebody who was there for five or six years. That is why the idea of segregating, categorising and dividing people has created resistance to the redress scheme. The scheme is well-intended.

The Minister talked about the cost of the scheme. I take a different view. I do not believe the State should look at the cost as much as it looks at what the cost in human terms is to the people who were in these homes, both the mothers and the babies, and the lives they have led in the meantime. They have carried this burden and anguish for years. Whether it was a month, a day or six years, the anguish and pain are still there.

Sometimes when we try to do something good, we get it wrong. This redress scheme needs to be re-examined. We should not try to divide and segregate people. It is also important to realise, as a previous speaker said, that the survivors are getting older. Many survivors have told me over the last five or six years that this is not about money but about recognition and the State saying it will try to do something for them. When it says it will do something for some people but not for others, because they were not in a home for long enough, how do we address that? People have asked me if they have to serve an apprenticeship before they qualify.

We have to look at this and say this is not what it is all about. It is about real people who have suffered more than enough. We are talking about events in the past. We are not proud of them, but we have to stop talking and act. We have to get people what they require. They have placed their faith in modern politics and the politicians of today to make sure they get what they deserve. I think the Minister has accepted the motion but he has to go beyond that. It is not just about not opposing the motion. We have to see this redress scheme broken apart and put back together in conjunction with all the survivors and advocacy groups in order that we can create something that is fitting for what we are dealing with. It is a major part of people's lives. As Deputy Boyd Barrett said, there is passion about this. It is not a political issue but one of everybody trying to do the right thing. That is why we are talking about this motion tonight.

As politicians, we come across some things that we say are not right. I was talking to a survivor on Saturday. He said he was lucky because he was fostered to a good family and good home. There are good stories. He farmed the land for 40 or 50 years and was left the farm. When it came to giving him the land, he had to pay stamp duty at 7.5% because he was a foster child, as opposed to paying stamp duty at 1% as if he was the son. He told me that survivors are being victimised everywhere they go. Despite what the paperwork said, this was a family handing its son the family farm. Even though this man was fostered, he had to pay 7.5% stamp duty. When he tried to get it back, he was told those were the rules. We have to ask why the rules are there. They are not supposed to victimise people but to help them along.

The other part of the motion that we have to look at, which was spoken about earlier, is its call on the Government to "seek immediate and substantive recourse from religious orders and pharmaceutical companies to contribute to the State’s redress scheme". We have to be strong on this. The pharmaceutical companies played a part in all of this. They cannot be allowed to just walk away. They need to own up to what they were doing. I spoke to a woman who was in a home in Cork. She told me that after having the baby, she was given a tablet. She did not know what it was for and she never found out. It is not recorded in any medical history. Experiments were carried out for the benefit of pharmaceutical companies without the knowledge or express permission of the mothers or the children.

We have to say to the religious orders that they need to own up too. I went to school in Tuam. The mother and baby home was probably closed before I started secondary school in the town but I know many people who remember it. They remember how children were segregated when going to classrooms and schools. They would be brought in after everybody was in the classroom brought out before anybody else was let out. One said that by changing the redress scheme to provide nothing for those who were there for less than six months and something for those who were there for a longer period is the same as when they went to school. They were treated differently then and people are being divided and treated differently now.

We have to ensure survivors and their families receive the recognition they surely deserve. They need the State apology, which has already been given, to be repeated many times. We have to show them respect. We have to give all of them restitution for what happened to them. We cannot be selective. That would not be the right thing to do. It is not about the money but the people who suffered unjust experiences, some of which are probably indescribable.

I acknowledge all of the work the Minister and Minister of State have done but this scheme needs to be overhauled before it goes further. We do not want to have any more anguish for the survivors. I acknowledge all of the survivors who I have met and who have written to me. Some have become friends. They have done everything they have been asked to do. They have been polite and brave. At times, they have gone through much anguish when telling the public what they went through. It has been a watershed for them. I hope this redress scheme will become a watershed for this State, making sure that we do something right for these people.

I acknowledge the work of Catherine Corless from my home town, Tuam, and her family. They have gone through a journey with her as she did all this work and research to expose what happened in the town. Tuam is not the only place where it happened, unfortunately. We have an opportunity and I would welcome the efforts of the Minister and Minister of State to make sure the scheme is for everybody.

See this speech in context