Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome and support this. The motion was approved in July and we will set up what we promised we would in relation to Tuam. It begs the question as to whether it is just Tuam and what about all the other places, as has been referred to.

As I am wont to do, I will put it in context. The expert technical group's report entitled Options and Appropriate Courses of Action was published in December 2017. The Government announced a forensic excavation in October 2018. The then Minister, Katherine Zappone, made some comments about taking the right actions. In November 2021, when nothing had happened, Dr. Niamh McCullagh, a forensic archaeologist, among others, called for a full excavation of the site as soon as possible so that DNA could be identified. She said: "As a forensic archaeologist I have never walked away from human remains in that context. The measures that were put in place to protect the site [in 2017]... were temporary measures, they were not designed to last longer than six months." Yet the site remains there unattended and not properly sealed off. As was mentioned by Deputy Cairns, the work on the ground has pushed this Government and every government reluctantly.

From day one, I have acknowledged the Minister's bona fides although they are wearing thin in light of what he has done in going back on his promise. On the ground, we have seen Catherine Corless and, well before her, Mary Raftery. I also want to mention Patricia Burke Brogan, who died last week - may she rest in peace - with regard to the work she did in respect of the Magdalen laundries, in particular the play Eclipsed.I could mention many more. The groups on the ground have certainly forced us and dragged us every step of the way. I remember being at a meeting in Tuam and the Ministers present were talking about closure. That was such an insult when we wanted openness and accountability. It showed the level of misunderstanding there was. I do not know whether it was benign or otherwise. Why have I lost faith? It is because we have no redress scheme nor any sight of one. However, we know it will exclude anyone who spent less than six months in an institution. I understand the Minister is in receipt of correspondence from more than 30 clinicians who work in the area of childhood trauma. On 21 November, in response to the publication of the redress scheme, they wrote that "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. Listen to that word: "arbitrary". The letter continues, "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" rather than time. The redress scheme proposed also excludes those who were boarded out. Our own special rapporteur for children, Professor Conor O'Mahony, said, "Any child who experienced severe neglect, emotional abuse or physical abuse in a boarded-out placement in circumstances where the State’s inspection regime was clearly defective would have an entitlement to an apology and to redress in the same way as any other child who experienced neglect or ill-treatment in a residential institution".

My time is short. None of this makes sense to me. Without referring to the Minister personally, the system has learnt absolutely nothing. We continue to begrudge and to do everything belatedly. If we are seriously interested in redress, let us do it right. The Minister planned to have an independent human rights review of the testimony given by the more than 550 people who came forward but he has gone back on that. I do not think he should ever have promised that because he was never in a position to do it. He was never going to question the establishment narrative given to us by the three wise commissioners, the narrative that told us that the evidence of those who came forward was contaminated and should therefore be treated with caution. They were never going to go back on what they said but the Minister promised to go outside of that and to have an independent review and he has gone back on that. To add insult to injury, he said that he will allow the people to come forward again, if they wish, to tell the story again and have it archived or displayed, if that is what they want, or for what was given to be used. This ignores the pain and the suffering of the more than 550 people who came forward with great courage to tell their stories, which were then described as contaminated by the three wise commissioners. No such caveat was applied to those who came forward from the religious organisations or to the doctors and solicitors who came forward. The Minister should never have promised that but, having promised it, he should have seen it through or, at the very least, given a proper analysis as to why he changed his mind and told the people on the ground personally, people who instead heard of it through an announcement in the newspaper. Of course, there are also all the legal challenges with regard to that commission's report that were upheld or settled. In all of this, the most important thing from day one was trust. That trust is not there.

See this speech in context