Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

As the Minister was delivering his opening statement, I was thinking of some of the interactions I have had with him on other Bills in the past when my knuckles turned white with anger - not directed at the Minister but for the sake of the women and children who suffered in these mother and baby homes. It is refreshing to see some movement on this Bill. It is welcome.

The Minister and Deputy Funchion acknowledged the work that was done by the Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. Deputies Bacik and Cairns, who are members of the committee, are also present. The role the committee played was collegial and we were all pushing in the same direction. It is good that the Minister took many of the recommendations of the committee on board in the process of preparing the legislation. I wish to particularly mention the Chair of the committee, Deputy Funchion, who steered us through a difficult and emotive journey.

That said, I have a few concerns about the legislation, one of which relates to the role of the coroner. That was one of the key issues in the discussions of the committee and for the advocate groups. I welcome that the role of the coroner is now back in the process. I recognise that the Minister has restored the restriction on the jurisdiction of the coroner. That is important. However, there is still some uncertainty around the role of the coroner. This has already been said but I will say it again. We know that children died in large numbers in these homes. We know they died of malnutrition, neglect and severe mistreatment. We know that babies were cruelly discarded in unconsecrated ground, septic tanks and mass graves. However, we do not know if the role of the coroner in this Bill will be central to all investigations. That is something we need to know.

The test for interventions remains effectively the same as it was in the heads of the Bill. While I accept that the legislation as currently drafted may adequately address the circumstances around Tuam, I have serious misgivings about whether the legislation will, in fact, sufficiently address other mother and baby home sites. The criteria for intervention remain effectively the same as they were prior to pre-legislative scrutiny. Despite positive reports in the media, particularly relating to Tuam, survivors who have contacted me and advocates, and no doubt the Minister too, are apprehensive that the make-up of this legislation suggests that the director of authorised intervention will only investigate or exhume bodies if they are accessible and not within 20 m of a dwelling. That could be hugely problematic. We need to be genuine about pursuing a programme of restorative justice. We need more information on how the Minister thinks the 20 m rule and the role of the agency, in conjunction with the coroner, will work. Have all possible scenarios been worked out and legislated for?

The role and purpose of memorials at certain sites is still unclear. There is an indication that the new director could choose the memorialisation of certain sites over thorough investigation or exhumation. Will the new director be able to choose the option of memorialisation for certain sites? If the director can do that, what is the justification and what are the criteria set down for such a decision?

I thank all the witnesses and groups who sat before the committee and engaged with the process. I also thank every individual who has contacted me on a personal basis for informing me and telling me their very personal stories about this emotive issue.

See this speech in context