Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I add my voice to those of the preceding speakers. It is vital that we ensure the redress process moves forward but the way this is being circumscribed is unacceptable, unconscionable and unreasonable. It is quite arbitrary in lots of ways.

A man came to visit me in my constituency office on Monday. He wanted to tell me about his experience. I told him that typically when we instance cases, we do not necessarily mention names but he said it was important to him that his name was mentioned because he said he did not want to be just a number. His name is Paul Lynch. He and his twin brother were fostered out at 23 months. They were 13 months in Roscrea and nine in Bessborough. They were taken away from their parents. Such was the insidious way the system operates, he believes that there was no legal basis for them to be fostered out and that their parents were married. He believes this can be proved. Still this was the basis on which they were fostered out. He never met his mother and it causes him enormous pain and upset to this day.

I have met many survivors over the years. He was just the most recent one. They are anxious. The State has accepted that redress is justified and necessary in the context of the huge pain and suffering that happened, the grievous injustice and the State's responsibility for that. Obviously these were private organisations and church organisations but the State was complicit and aware. It co-operated, participated and gave these organisations free rein to establish, run and perpetuate this regime.

It was part of a whole system. Sometimes we can talk about these things as separate and distinguish between the industrial schools, the Magdalen laundries, the mother and baby homes and the county homes.

While there were differences and there are different issues, ultimately they were all part of the same system and culture and reflected the same attitude to institutionalising people, particularly women, who fell outside of the mores and morality that had been deemed acceptable. Other things often came into it too, including race, class and all kinds of other snobbery.

It is clearly important that redress is delivered. Many people are concerned that we reach that point as early as possible and rightly so, because they have waited long enough and many survivors have been waiting for far too long. This proposal to exclude those who were boarded out or who spent less than six months in the institutions is incomprehensible to me. Some other institutions that were not specifically named in the report are excluded too. The six months seems incredibly arbitrary. It goes against so much of what we now understand about infant mental health, adverse childhood experiences and the impact that trauma can have right from the start. That separation would have been immensely traumatic for infants. It is being proposed to simply disregard that as if anything before six months is of no huge consequence or great significance. There is no other rationale for that cut-off point except that it is the attitude the Department has adopted; is é sin, nach raibh an phian nó an fhulaingt chomh dona roimh an sé mhí, gur chaith siad tréimhse ghearr ann agus dá bharr bhí siad ar a gcumas a saol a bheith acu ina dhiaidh sin agus nach raibh an tionchar céanna orthu. Is léir gur imríodh drochthionchar uafásach mór orthu agus go raibh tionchar á leanúint ar a gcuid saol tar éis é sin.

There is no doubt that it would have continued. It shaped the rest of their lives. Of course, in that context, they should be entitled to redress. I cannot understand any kind of rationale that would exclude them and likewise for the other institutions. It am not sure whether it is due to Standing Orders or the Department but it is a shame that we are so restricted in the amendments which can be tabled. There is still time, through these institutions, to revise this. The weight of public opinion is clear. The Whip shall apply but if one asked people privately, I think the weight of opinion in here would not favour this kind of restrictive approach. It is clear that the weight of opinion among survivors is appalled, and rightly so. I urge the Minister to please reconsider this through the forthcoming Stages. Tá súil agam go ndéanfaidh an tAire smaoineamh air seo agus gur féidir cur chuige níos deise, níos féaráilte agus níos córa a chur ar bun chun ceart agus cóir a thabhairt do na daoine a bhí sna hinstitiúidí seo.

See this speech in context