Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for tabling the motion and giving us the opportunity to debate an incredibly important issue. It had not been my intention to speak but I looked for time to speak on behalf of two of my constituents. Many of my constituents are victims. As the Minister knows, there are many victims, many of whom will be excluded. One is a man who thinks he is aged 79; he does not know exactly how old he is because his records have been falsified. He lives in Balbriggan. He wants to know who he is and where he came from and who his family is - all the basic information that we take for granted. He tells me that he felt as though he was shoved to one side, put in a box so that people could not see him, would not hear from him and would not have to think about where he was from or the circumstances of his birth. He talks of the shame associated with coming from the county home and how he was viewed by other people in his community. The other constituent is also a man. I will not name either of them because God knows they have been treated badly enough without parading their names through the House. He showed me his arms and some of his side where he had been injected as a baby and there had been some sort of infection. Arising out of that he was left permanently scarred. This is a man in his 50s. He talks about the shame, the exclusion and the feeling of being outside and wanting to be brought inside and feeling that society wanted to other him and put him somewhere out of sight. That gets right to the heart of what is missing from the scheme. The fact is that 70% of survivors effectively stayed for six months or less and that means they are going to be excluded. That is a huge number of people whom the Minister claims he wants to help, does not want to ignore and wants to support, who are in fact going to be excluded. That is shameful. He can address that. I would give him the benefit of the doubt actually. I would not say he is unaware of the importance of the first six months of a child's life. I would say he is acutely aware of its importance and that makes what he is doing worse. He is not ignorant of what he is doing. He is doing it to limit the cost and because it is politically expedient to do it. He is also doing it so that he can stand in the House and say that something is being done when he knows that effectively people are going to be excluded. The opportunity now presents for him to have another look at this, to take on board what victims and survivors are saying to him, to take on board the anger and hurt that is felt and take some action to make the scheme fit for purpose.

See this speech in context