Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

In my seven minutes, I would like to deal with the amendment, because when I am in the Chair, I make people deal with amendments with relevant contributions. It is difficult not to refer to the overall context of this amendment. We put our names to that amendment. I thank Deputy Sherlock for having the foresight to see that this amendment might be left in while the others were ruled out. The first amendment I had was to deal with the Title. It sought simply to include anybody who had been resident in an institution, period. It was ruled out of order. I wanted that in the context of many reports, some of which can be seen here. In fairness to the visitors in the Gallery and to Catherine Corless in Tuam, without whom there would be nothing, this goes back to 2012, with eight years from 2012 to 2020 and three more since. During that time, we had various reports. I do not want to keep repeating this. This is our last opportunity unless the Minister sees sense tonight. When this is adjourned, I ask him to take on board what has been said.

We look at the human rights issues. We go from Catherine Corless in 2012. The commission was set up in 2015. There were eight interim reports in the end. The Minister kept the final report on a shelf from October until the following January, when he organised a webcam and told everybody the survivors were going to get a copy, but they did not. We have outlined this before. It is important to say it again because, all the time, we hear this lovely word that I cannot stand, "learnings". We are supposed to learn from experience and change. We have done nothing like that. We were supposed to learn from the original institutions redress scheme that made it a criminal offence for me, when I was a barrister, or my client to disclose what we got. This Dáil passed legislation criminalising the disclosure of the amount of money people got from the redress board.

Fast forward to the Magdalen laundries scheme, called maladministration by the Ombudsman, and to Caranua, which I have said many times is an abuse of the Irish language. "Cara nua" means "new friend", when really it was the old enemy in disguise. I have said this over and over and I have to repeat it. We are here tonight to address an amendment based on what we learned. We spoke about consultation. We got the OAK Consulting report. It is a private company which did a good job. It listened to the survivors. I understand that more than 500 came forward and said what they wanted. What jumps out from that is that they asked for no more division, no more discrimination, and inclusiveness. They asked to be listened to and included. They asked for the wrong to be acknowledged and for the apology to mean something for the future so that those who spent time in institutions and their families will have better lives as a result of the apology and the redress that we make. Redress in financial terms can never be enough. It must be part of an overall thing.

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, set out the principles that should be in the Title, which I could not even change one little bit. IHREC set out the guiding principles for relevant human rights and equality at a minimum. It listed what should be in the legislation so that we could learn and show survivors that we have learned. We have not done that either. The Minister has stood over a system where there has been so much exclusion from this, while his press releases have put an emphasis on what he has included. He has left out people who were boarded out and those from mixed-race relationships. They have made many submissions pointing out the trauma and range of suffering that was involved. There is also the issue of children under six months. I understand that when the Minister was asked about that, he said, "I suppose children who were in there less than six months wouldn't have been aware of their experiences and would have been too young to remember their experiences." We have the tabula rasaapproach of children being a blank sheet when they are born and still a blank sheet six months later, with nothing having affected them in any institution, not even this break with their mothers, so we exclude them completely. That is what the interdepartmental group did and the Minister is standing over that.

I am standing here with two minutes left to address an amendment that my name is on, in the hope that we can shake the Minister a little. He was on "Morning Ireland" this morning. All through my time in the Dáil, I really avoided personalising any debate, but he went on "Morning Ireland" and I waited with bated breath for the interviewer to ask him a question about the scheme he has boasted about as being the most expansive, most inclusive and biggest scheme ever to make redress, but there was not a single question from our national broadcaster. Was that accidental? When the Minister was asked how his Department came to exclude babies under six months, did he give answers to any papers or anyone who asked him, or did he come back and say that the Government is doing it for their good, that it does not want to upset them and that it does not want to tell them why it has excluded babies under six months? Tell me if I am wrong. I will be the first to say sorry because we all make mistakes.

I am here talking to an amendment which highlights seven parts to be included in a review after six months. That is the most basic thing the Minister could agree to in order that we could learn. It would give some meaning to the word "learnings". It is a ridiculous word that has been made up and makes a mockery of language. We are looking for a review after six months to see what we have actually learned from people on the ground. We have been forced to do this because most of our other amendments are out of order. If I was in the Chair, I would have to preside in that role too and say that they are out of order. There is something seriously amiss with this system when we have to do it like this.

This debate is scheduled to go to 8.30 p.m. If the Minister has any sense, he will put meaning into words and say he is willing to listen. There is a finite number of people in this group. They have bent over backwards to work with the Minister, work with us and tell us. I think we have learned more from our experience with survivors than the entity of the Government has ever learned or looks like it will ever learn.

See this speech in context