Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is St. Brigid's Day. Brigid was a significant woman in Christian and pagan times. I try to take strength from her because we are tired. We do not want to do this but we have no choice. We have listened to people's sheer frustration, upset and disbelief. I lost a little patience with someone I talked to yesterday because I thought that person was still hopeful. I was left in the position of saying we will go through a charade tomorrow with these amendments. I then thought that was not correct and I should not do that, but it was a reflection of my own frustration. People came to Leinster House today with hope. They communicated with us hundreds of times. My staff have worked all this week to reply to them.

I do not know if the Minister realises the frustration out there. I would prefer to be in the Chair and maybe go home to read a book, but it is my duty, my job and a privilege to stand here, read this material and say it back to the Minister. I do not wish to do that in a personal way but the Minister is standing over a system with so many exclusions, from people of mixed race to those who were boarded out to the six-month requirement. There are so many problems with this legislation. The worst part for me is that it is being done under the guise of upholding human rights when it is exclusionary, divisive and insulting. The six months are purely arbitrary. As I said, Deputy Sherlock should not have bothered minding his child for six months because that is the logic of what the Minister is saying. The Deputy has just invested six months loving his child, with his partner I am sure, but for what purpose? This Government is telling us that is nothing.

The Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, is present. I have the greatest respect for her but she and the Minister are standing over this system. It is a case of tabula rasa,a blank slate. To help the Minister, I will read a letter into the record and ask the Minister once again what his response to it was and how he justifies the six-month requirement. This letter is very unusual. I worked as a psychologist and many times I pulled out my hair hoping that psychologists and psychiatrists would speak out. Some 32 or 33 of them spoke by putting their names to a letter dated 21 November 2021. which states:

Dear Minister,

We are writing to you as a specialist group of clinicians working in the area of childhood trauma in Ireland. We are aware that in releasing details of the Mother and Baby Homes redress scheme you have received a number of responses from various quarters to date and we want to add our contribution which is coming from a place of compassion, [missing from the Government], concern and desire [foolishly and naively] to have theory influence policy in a meaningful way.

In reading the details of the scheme what strikes us the lack of integration of the latest research regarding childhood trauma and brain development. [Remember that Science Foundation Ireland is constantly telling us about evidence-based research, which I note because these people are struck by] ... the lack of integration of the latest research regarding childhood trauma and brain development, which in turn lead to erroneous conclusions and pathways for those with lived experience of Mother and Baby Homes. The issues are complex but there are a couple of important points ...

Firstly, childhood trauma, which includes separation from primary caregiver and exposure to multiple caregivers in an institutional setting, has the greatest impact early in childhood. This is due to the rapid growth in brain development at this time and the importance of consistency of adult-child interaction to ensure adequate stimulation for optimal brain growth. We are so fortunate to know so much about this area now thanks to recent developments in neuroscience and attachment [which is completely missing from the Government's approach] and indeed to have clinicians in Ireland who are informed by these principles. However, some information is not entirely new. For instance, we know that early separation from a caregiver is intrinsically stressful and has long-lasting impact throughout the lifespan. Thus, to state that young children, who might have been in Mother and Baby Homes for a period of 2-3 months early in life were less impacted by those who spent longer, is simply not scientifically correct. Indeed, the opposite is true. The earlier the impact of trauma the more ... lasting the effects.

Secondly, [and I will push it] ... having an arbitrary period of 6 months' ... is simply that, arbitrary. What is known from research in the area of childhood trauma is that it is the combination of adversity and quality of relationships which confer risk.

[...]

Thirdly, an understanding of the impact of trauma on development allows us to understand how issues are likely to present, depending on the age and [the] stage ... For example, mothers and older children might be able to narrate [and articulate] their experiences ... Those who were babies at the time of experience and consequently ... pre-verbal will not have developed the language and cognitive abilities to narrate [not to understand but narrate] their stories. This leaves these individuals more vulnerable to embodied trauma, that is trauma held and expressed through[out] the body [and so on].

[...]

We are seeking a revision of the recommendations ... [of] the report, with inclusion of best practice guidelines regarding neuroscience, childhood trauma and attachment. [The Minister knows this. I am reading it out for the record but he knows this because he has read it.]

[...]

One final point. These women and children have experienced complex trauma and adversity in their lives. Yes, the money will help, there's no doubt about it. But there is also an opportunity to right a wrong, to empathise at a human level and seek to understand. We want to minimise the risk of secondary traumatisation and invalidation of survivors and their families which is most likely where experiences are not heard, respected and redressed. Fundamentally, it is about mothers, children and families being seen and heard and having their lived experiences validated. Collectively, we can surely strive for this?

How naive it is to think we can collectively strive for this? I would like to think that too. I am becoming more cynical, but there is a duty on me to rise above that cynicism. I appeal to the Minister to go back. Let us do this right. It is a finite number of people and a finite amount of money. We have not even asked the religious orders about this. God knows, they might come forward in a co-operative manner and work with us.

See this speech in context