Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Funchion for tabling the motion and Solidarity-People Before Profit for the proposed additions. I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. I recognise the work the Minister has done to get us to this point. I could go over the history of the issue but will not do so in the limited time available. Instead, I will focus on a number of issues and refer to several submissions and reports.

First is the submission to the Government from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, which includes a number of observations and recommendations. On page 22, it states:

By the Commission of Investigation's own admissions, it did not take a human rights-based approach. This has resulted in findings and recommendations that do not reflect Ireland's human rights or equality obligations and in turn is not an adequate mechanism for identifying the full universe of survivors.

I acknowledge that the Minister has gone a little beyond the commission's recommendations, but not far enough. The IHREC submission further states:

In the past Ireland has been criticised for its narrow interpretation of the category of persons who should qualify... All participants emphasised how the Final Report failed to recognise the gravity and magnitude of the human rights violations that occurred in Mother and Baby Homes and related institutions... [They reported] a perceived lack of recognition [I would go much stronger than that] of trauma of being separated from mother or child and the 'family destruction' therein.

The Minister has come forward with a scheme and, notwithstanding his best efforts, he is now perpetuating that discrimination all over again and adding to survivors' trauma, whether he likes it or not.

Let us consider the people, other than my colleagues and me, who have made that case. The open letter the Minister received from therapists was a bold statement. They do not often do such a thing and I welcome it. The letter has 30-plus signatures of professionals who have spoken out. They state: "Firstly, childhood trauma, which includes separation from primary caregiver and exposure to multiple caregivers in an institutional setting, has the greatest impact early in childhood." Lack of time prevents me from reading out the whole letter but I ask all members of the Government to read it. The authors further state:

Secondly, there is no quantum of time that allows us to think about the impact of childhood trauma. Thus, having an arbitrary period of six months' exposure is simply that, arbitrary. What is known from research in the area of childhood trauma is that it is the combination of adversity and quality of relationships which confer risk.

They go on to refer to research in this area. Having had the privilege, in a previous life, of working in psychology, I refer the Minister to the work of John Bowlby, which we knew of as students, even when we were not paying much attention to our studies. We knew the importance of the early childhood bond, as outlined in the letter.

The submission from the IHREC likewise asks the Minister to withdraw the six-month residency distinction. However, he is persisting with it. I looked for some idea as to where that criterion came from and what the justification is for it. I am afraid, like Deputy Barry, I cannot think of any reason other than a monetary one. The report of the interdepartmental group reflects the fact it did some good work, but it was done within a financial framework and without any understanding of the trauma that was caused by many parts of the experience of survivors, particularly by the separation of mother and baby. There is an utter failure to recognise that and, again, a perpetuation of the abuse.

I apologise if I am sometimes too passionate about this issue but I know it inside out from both professional and personal experience. The personal has nothing to do with my role in the Dáil but the professional side does. It is our duty to highlight every occasion on which this Government and other Governments have perpetuated this injustice and the misuse of language. I notice, for instance, that the interdepartmental report refers to the importance of kindness. I certainly agree that kindness is a quality that should be inherent in a just system based on principle. The report talks about the principle of kindness. In fact, kindness is not a principle; it is a quality that should be present in any interaction with the State. What is important are the principles of justice, proportionality, fairness, equality and so on. That is not recognised in the interdepartmental report or the proposal with which the Minister is persisting.

On page 35 of the interdepartmental report, we get some idea of why the six-month residency condition is included. It is stated very clearly and quite adamantly, as outlined earlier in the chapter, as follows: "The group is strongly of the view that the six month residency criterion is particularly important when considering children [I do not know whether the Minister has read this] as it [the interdepartmental committee] does not want to create a circumstance whereby being born in a mother and baby home or a county home is deemed a basis for the redress under the scheme". There we have it. The mere fact that someone was born in a home is not going to give him or her any right or entitlement. That brings home to me the utter failure to understand what we have all been guilty of in allowing what happened in mother and baby homes in Ireland. An apology was given by the Taoiseach and other apologies were given in 1999 by Bertie Ahern. We are utterly failing to act on those apologies in a meaningful fashion.

As the time is almost up, the final point I will make is that serious consideration must be given to the provision of interim payments. This is a vulnerable group of people, of whom more than one third are aged over 70, one third are aged between 60 and 70 and one third are nearing 60 years of age. That has to be first and foremost in our minds. I cannot escape the conclusion that decisions were made on the basis of money. The exclusion is not done on principles of justice or equality but for the purpose of saving money for the State, religious institutions and pharmaceutical companies.

See this speech in context