Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 14, to delete lines 19 to 22.

This amendment seeks to remove another exclusion based on spending a minimum amount of time in an institution. The section relates to people who make another application to the scheme in the unlikely situation that another institution is added to the list of institutions, and the arbitrary six-month criteria is relevant here as well. The arbitrary six-month exclusion has been widely criticised and highlighted as having no basis in evidence other than as a tool to exclude survivors. From a report in The Irish Timeslast year, we know that documents from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform warned that extending the scheme would “create a significant precedent regarding claims from many others in society who may feel they are also entitled to some form of redress or recognition payment based on any length of residency or attendance in an institution or other setting”. In a statement wholly ignorant of any research or personal experience of survivors, it is claimed that those who spent less times in homes would likely have gone on to live “comfortable and contented lives”. This position is, frankly, indefensible. I know we discussed it earlier but I do not think it can be said enough, and I would like to go into some more of the detail. The disregard for those who were born and spent time in a mother and baby home is highly immoral. It is disgusting that people are being denied any form of recognition because of what are, frankly, ignorant and hurtful statements from the Minister and officials in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

It is important to give a sense of the overwhelming evidence and recommendations for all survivors to receive redress, especially this group. First, I want to quote directly from the OAK report, which states:

...the majority of those who participated in the consultation process supported a universal, inclusive scheme. The largest proportion of written submissions stated that all mothers and babies who resided in mother and baby homes should be eligible for redress, regardless of the duration or year of their stay and regardless of whether children were accompanied or unaccompanied by their mothers.

Will the Minister address this in his response? The OAK report specifically states that survivors are seeking financial redress for those who spent less than six months in homes as children.

8 o’clock

The Minister is going to claim that the overwhelming priority need expressed is for access to records, but that is not what the OAK report says.

Second, when this restriction was first published last year, more than 30 clinical experts wrote to the Minister stating that childhood trauma has the greatest impact early in childhood. They pointed out that there is no threshold of time linked to this trauma and, as a result, having an arbitrary period of six months exposure is simply that, arbitrary.

Third, a whole range of groups and bodies are calling for the removal of this exclusion, including the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and the Clann project.

The committee was very clear in its recommendation that the six-month residency requirement must be removed. Anyone who was resident in the institutions should be entitled to a payment, regardless of the time spent therein.

In contrast to all of this, we only have the Minister's assertion that children would have been "too young to remember their experiences". In his response, could the Minister clarify if this is still his position? As Minister for children, what is his perspective on the importance of the first six months of a child's development and the role of parents in that period? There is no doubt that survivors were deeply impacted by their time in mother and baby homes and that they should be included in the redress scheme.

Amendment No. 63 relates to the addition of other institutions to Schedule 1. It could have a significant impact on many survivors. It is important that the Bill enables institutions to be added as easily as possible to facilitate survivors' accessing redress. This comes under the principle of timely access to compensation and the removal of time-based barriers, as outlined by the UN Human Rights Committee and survivors. Under the Bill currently, the Minister would need the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to add any institutions. Besides the implicit chilling effect that would have on any proposals, it is also a complex process prone to interdepartmental delays and discussion. Instead, amendment No. 26 proposes that the chief deciding officer and Minister are best placed to add institutions to Schedule 1. This is a simple and more efficient process that keeps the decision as close to those impacted as possible.

See this speech in context