Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome members of the Tuam Mother and Baby Home Alliance in the Public Gallery who have been active not only on this aspect of the scheme but on everything connected with the mother and baby institutions over the years.

I speak in support of amendment No. 2 and my amendment No. 62, which is similar. I agree with Deputy Cairns that it was Deputy Sherlock who first gave us the idea that we could seek the publication of a report as it would mean our amendments would not be ruled out of order. There are very important aspects of this scheme that need to be discussed. If people were genuinely looking into their hearts, they could not support these aspects of the scheme.

I do not understand how a person born in an institution who spent less than six months there can be excluded. A person who spent seven months in an institution would be included, yet another person who spent five months, three weeks and three days in the same institution would be excluded. We cannot quantify the horrors, abuse and appalling treatment inflicted on women and children under the eyes of the State, and the religious institutions - let us not forget them. The State mainly oversaw these institutions. We cannot say that the suffering of a person who spent one month in an institution is less than that of a person who spent six months, a year or longer in one. It is very cynical and leaves out 40% of survivors. We all know it is a cost-saving measure by the Government. It can be dressed up in any other way but the reality is it is the reason the Government is doing the scheme this way.

The scheme also excludes those who were boarded out. The argument for doing that is that it is difficult to identify people. With so many advocacy groups and people working with survivors of mother and baby institutions, it would be very easy to identify them. At a minimum, an attempt should be made to identify those who were boarded out and ensure they are included in this scheme. The costs would be astronomical for the State but if we are genuinely sorry, we need to stop talking about it and match our words with action. When I used to work for a trade union, we often came across people who would say it is not about the money. They wanted an apology and recognition of what was done to them. The best way of getting that is by a person showing action. A financial payment of redress is one of the best ways the State can do that. It can show its sincerity by getting rid of the six-month rule and not excluding those who were boarded out or certain institutions. The scheme includes only the institutions that were covered by the mother and baby home report, which we all know was flawed. There were huge issues with the report and an addendum was inserted in it.

So the State to a certain extent is acknowledging the flaws and the issues with that report yet all of the institutions that are not covered by it are also left out. Unfortunately, we will not be able to support this Bill because we cannot justify pitting survivors against each other - those with more than six months who were born in the institutions and those with less. It is impossible for us to support it.

I also want to mention the OAK report because as I have said before in this Chamber, for the most part, people were happy with the consultation process and felt they were listened to. The report was commissioned by the Department and now the very good recommendations of the report are being ignored. This is double cruelty. It is adding insult to injury to ignore all those reports when people were finally listened to properly. It is the same patriarchal mindset that forced women into the institutions in the first place and stood over stealing people's children. We are seeing the same mindset throughout this.

Mixed-race children were placed as babies not only in mother and baby homes but also in nurseries of other institutions. This is not being looked at in terms of a breach of international human rights. We have the chance to create a really good scheme that does not exclude people. I have often said that it is difficult to know how to put price on any of this but the very first thing you do is ensure you are not excluding somebody. A scheme that excludes 40% of the relevant people is wrong and flawed to begin with. We need to change that, include boarded-out children and all of the institutions and look at the actual report commissioned by the Department and its recommendations. I know there are a lot of amendments so I will speak on some of the other points later. I feel really strongly about the six months. I do not think any person could honestly say he or she believes that is fair and right. It is clearly a cost-saving measure and really needs to be removed.

See this speech in context