Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

Every parent knows about milestones in their children's first two years. They know about the importance of them.

They know when they are meant to hit particular developmental targets. They await the targets anxiously and burst with pride when their children meet the targets. This is ingrained into every parent but it is also ingrained into every children's medical specialist. It is through these milestones and timelines that we can ascertain how a child is developing, whether there are any difficulties or issues and how the child is growing. These milestones are based on science, evidence and clinical evidence. The Minister has created another milestone with this redress scheme. It is an arbitrary milestone that is not based on any science or evidence. It goes against every single bit of scientific knowledge that we have about children's development. It also flies in the face of Government policy.

By excluding children under six months from this scheme, the Minister is essentially saying that what happens in the first six months of their lives does not matter. He said, "children who were in for less than six months would not have been aware of their experiences, would have been too young to remember their experiences." That goes against everything we know. If one looks at the HSE website, one will be informed that by the age of one month, children are starting to develop socially and emotionally. Babies are getting to know you and to bond. By the age of three months, they give warm smiles and laugh. They enjoy looking at your face. By the age of six months, they get upset when they cannot see their main caregivers. The Minister is saying that does not count and does not matter. He said that people can essentially do what they want to babies under six months of age, because they will not remember and it will not make any difference to them. The Minister launched the First 5 programme, which states that "Time together with parents especially in the first year" is so important for children. It does not refer to time with parents in the seventh to 12th months, but to the first year, because it is based on science. I have serious concerns about a Minister with responsibility for children who does not understand the developmental and psychological needs of children.

The Minister's policies for the redress scheme are contradictory to his other policies and to what we know about childhood trauma. It is not that this has not been raised with the Minister. A group of psychologists contacted him to explain this to him and to say that everything he is doing with this is wrong. As a public representative, and particularly as a mother, I know that this is retraumatising. I know and science knows how important those six months are. The Minister is saying those six months do not matter. I do not understand how he can completely ignore experts, scientific advice and his own policy in this regard.

The Minister needs to go back to look at this scheme again. He cannot exclude people based on that six-month rule. Not only is he excluding their experiences within those six months, but he is also completely ignoring what happened to them after the six months, with the shame, the trauma, the fear of not knowing what their future held, and the sense of isolation and feeling alone due to not knowing who their mother was and not knowing what their names are. That would stay with people whether they were in the home for six months or for six years. The Minister is ignoring that. He will retraumatise many survivors. Some 40% of survivors were in a home for less than six months.

I want to make a point about the Minister's speech. He said all the right things. I listened and said to myself that he gets it. We need to see the Minister do the right things. What is written in the speech does not matter if he does not put this into action and make sure that all survivors are heard when it comes to this issue.

See this speech in context