Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I commend the Acting Chairman on her running of proceedings and keeping us all on time.

I support the motion and am glad it has been tabled by the Social Democrats. I note the motion put forward by that party on 24 February 2021, to which the Labour Party tabled an amendment relating to medical cards. The amendment was accepted and the motion, as amended, agreed to by the House. The amendment called on the Government to issue an enhanced medical card to all survivors who presented to mother and baby homes for any length of time, including while pregnant or on a post-natal basis. That motion has been passed by the Dáil. With the announcement of the scheme, there now seems to be a rowing back on that democratic position that was taken.

In the context of the publication of the questions and answers document relating to the mother and baby institutions payment scheme, it is important that we convey to people that the scheme is not up and running and that it requires the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Bill 2022 to be passed before it comes into operation. Many Deputies are being contacted by people who think the scheme is up and running and it is important that a message goes out to clarify that it is not yet in operation. The publication of the questions and answers paper has given the impression that the scheme is in place. There is a need to clarify for the public, especially survivors, that it is not yet in existence.

Like everybody else, I am perplexed as to why there is such an arbitrary cut-off point with regard to babies below six months of age. I can only surmise that the Minister and the Department have put some quantifiable monetary value on the cost of compensation or redress that would significantly increase the overall cost beyond €800 million that is allocated. I can think of no other reason the Government would act in such an arbitrary way in respect of babies aged less than six months. The Minister stated:

The commission recommended a scheme in which 6,500 people would benefit, at a total cost of €400 million. We have gone substantially beyond that. The proposals contained in the State scheme will benefit 34,000 people, at a total cost of €800 million. Some 19,000 former residents will receive enhanced medical cards.

If I am interpreting the scheme correctly - I am open to correction in that regard - the Minister is saying that for mothers who spent less than three months in a mother and baby home or a county home institution it is €5,000, for mothers who spent between three and six months it is €10,000, and there is then a €1,500 work payment for mothers who qualify in that regard. That means the total amount for those who qualify for the general payment and the work payment is €11,500. What I am trying to convey, possibly awkwardly, is that I do not understand the quantum for babies between birth and six months and whether there is a value put on that. When I say "value", I am asking whether the Government kicked the tyres from a financial perspective when it was doing the financial calculations and came up with a figure of €800 million. How much extra would it have cost the State to include babies between birth and six months? I am not an accountant and I do not want to sound like one. Ultimately, the point I am making is that the fact that a person spent a period in one of these institutions should, morally and ethically, be sufficient for the person to, at least, be given some recognition by way of redress for that period.

The Minister will present his Bill in the week of 26 October. There is still a sword of Damocles hanging over us in the context of the testimony of people who presented to the confidential committee. Respectfully, that has not yet been fully addressed by the Minister. He has stated previously that he is going to create an archive but it adds insult to injury if people who have presented to the confidential committee are now being told that testimony will be archived and housed elsewhere. There must be all sorts of difficulties in respect of the general data protection regulation, GDPR, and the ethics or lack of ethics when it comes to taking all of that information and putting it into an archive without going back to each person who presented to that confidential committee. They rightly feel aggrieved that their testimony was not treated with the respect it deserved. There are issues in that regard that still need to be dealt with in the context of the Bill that will be brought before us. I suspect that much play will made by members of the Opposition in respect of that issue because we cannot hive it off; we need to deal with it face on. We in opposition have consistently said that our generation of politicians needs to deal with this issue as comprehensively as possible. It is one of the issues that must be addressed.

The issue of GSK, formerly GlaxoSmithKline, has not yet been put to bed either. Dare I deign to give the Minister advice on what he should do? If I was in his position, I would call in GSK and tell the company that it needs to do more than apologise. I refer to the lack of ethics shown. This company still exists and all it has done is given an apology. There would be a moral obligation and responsibility on any pharmaceutical company to deal with an issue such as this. In the context of the vaccine trials alone, there also needs to be a greater degree of accountability and culpability from the religious institutions. I am repeating points that have been well made to the Minister. He will be acutely aware of all this and I know he will have internalised all of these complexities in his own thinking on the Bill that will come before us. However, I ask him not to forget that there is a moral obligation on companies such as GSK, particularly where they are IDA Ireland clients and have been the beneficiaries of significant supports from the State through the years. They have a moral obligation and there is leverage on the part of the Government to be able to flex its muscles in that regard.

The Labour Party supports the motion wholeheartedly and thanks the Social Democrats - I nearly said "the Progressive Democrats" - for bringing it forward.

See this speech in context