Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the mother and baby institutions redress scheme. I begin by acknowledging all those who contacted Members across this House to outline their views and concerns on the provisions of the Bill. Before I address several matters of concern I have with the Bill, I must state that time is a crucial factor here. It has been said to me on numerous occasions that valuable time has been allowed go by while those who fell victim to these institutions awaited justice. That did not just happen in the decades gone by because it is also the case with the delays leading up to the report of the commission of investigation and the processes that have been mired in controversy since. The people who have been seeking justice, redress and answers for their entire lives have been let down by these delays. They do not have the luxury of being able to wait for answers or to be afforded justice.

For decades, the women who were incarcerated in mother and baby homes were shut away from society; they were hidden, silenced and worked. Their children were in many cases subjected to a separation from their mothers that defies belief. They were often treated as commodities to be traded. These women and children were treated like very few others in society. Their pursuit of truth, justice and their own histories has been beset by obstacles. These include records that are missing or were destroyed - deliberately or otherwise - accounts misrepresented, as we have seen in recent times, or accounts not being given the context they deserved. Over the years these people looked on as they were spoken about by those who did not share the horrors they endured or spend their lives piecing back together the missing parts of those lives. I want us to recognise this because we must ensure the issues we are discussing are framed by that knowledge and the consequences of those experiences.

Unfortunately, while I believe the Minister is committed to doing right by survivors of these institutions, the Bill falls short in a number of areas. I begin with the deeply-flawed decision to exclude from redress anybody who was in one of these institutions for fewer than 180 days as a child. I have been told that survivors are feeling "sold out" by this - that is the term that was used. That is not the response we want to hear when seeking to make amends to a person for a lifetime of being wronged. Imagine a person who was in a mother and baby home for six months or fewer. Does the Minister think their sense of loss and the gaps that may remain in their personal histories are any less than those of people who were in one of those places for two years or more? A stay of thee to six months was typical at Sean Ross Abbey, so that is where the feeling of being sold out comes from. Does the Minster think nobody who was born in an institution covered by this Bill, or who was born in one and stayed there for fewer than six months before they were moved on or exported, should have that recognised? Are their potential needs any less? Are the emotional impact of what or who they lost or the overall consequences for them any less? I cannot see the sense in all of this. There is not even a medical card. I can only put it down to an effort to limit liability to reduce costs. I am reluctant to say that but it is the only answer I can come up with. When talking about the survivors of these institutions we must talk about them all. They all had an element of self-determination taken away from them by a system that dominated their direction in life and it deeply affected their lives from that time on. This is a fundamental flaw the Minister must see. The nuns of Sean Ross Abbey got the money for their transactions regardless, yet an arbitrary bar is set for survivors. Deep down, the Minister knows this is profoundly wrong. I urge him to revise this or accept an amendment to address it.

This shortcoming also affects those who were boarded out as children. They were in many cases workhorses for others. It is unjust in the extreme. Furthermore, the legal waiver remains, so we see more restrictions on who qualifies for this scheme. This effectively removes people's ability to exercise their right to justice and pursue legal action while at the same time the religious orders that sought to profit from their inhumane methods and treatment of women and children are afforded all the time they want to further delay justice for survivors. Where are they now? I will tell the Minister. They are again holding back from the survivors. They are again abandoning them, wasting their valuable time and running down the clock. They are pinching every penny, just as they kept women and children at subsistence levels throughout their time in these places. It is the same old story for survivors - different rules apply to them. They are left without while other parties, including the pharmaceutical companies, have a free hand to act as they please. The UN special rapporteur, its human rights committee and its human rights experts have all called for appropriate compensation, removal of legal waivers and for any scheme to address child victims of racial discrimination within Irish institutions. These calls are being largely ignored. I urge the Minister to address this, rethink some of the provisions in the Bill, to take a hard line in those negotiations and to get them wrapped up as soon as possible.

Earlier, I spoke of the obstacles survivors of these institutions had to overcome. I spoke of accounts being misrepresented or presented out of context. The elements of the Bill I have highlighted are representative of that, in a way. OAK was called on to consult survivors, many of whom had to add to their original testimonies as the commission of investigation misrepresented the original accounts, questioned their veracity or laid them aside. In much the same way, the recommendations obtained from the accounts repeatedly given by some survivors have been ignored in the Bill. Survivors engaged in good faith in many cases, relived the trauma they went through and yet their testimonies were either misrepresented or dismissed. Despite this, the request to appoint a human rights expert to examine testimony given to the commission of investigation has been refused. That is totally unacceptable. The lack of trust in the process that survivors have developed over the years must be addressed. The Minister has an opportunity to do this now. While I thank him for the attention he has given to the survivors of Sean Ross Abbey in my constituency, I strongly urge him not to leave this Bill as it is.

There are two further issues I wish to address. Survivors have numerous questions about the payments a select number will receive. Given the age of many survivors, there are concerns that if the processes involved are too onerous or lengthy, some may not live to receive those payments. What timescale can we expect? If a person passes away before receiving his or her entitlements, will they be passed on to the family?

I urge the Minister to see this debate as an opportunity to do what is right. On foot of my engagement with him, I am sure he wants to do what is right.

Whatever or whoever is holding him back, I urge him to resist and to bring sense and compassion into play. To echo Deputy Funchion, a massive push must be put on the religious orders and pharmaceutical companies to make payments, provide redress and give these survivors what they deserve.

See this speech in context