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

I also want to speak to amendment No. 56 which I am totally opposed to. It refers to somebody being required to submit additional information and yet the Minister just said that in many cases the records are not available. If we know the records are not available, what additional information can people possibly submit? Tonight and during countless debates we have asked why people who were born in the institutions and spent less than six months there have been excluded. One of the answers we get back is that the Minister wanted a non-adversarial approach. However, does the Minister actually think that people who have nothing to do with a mother and baby institution will try to apply for this? That is how it appears.

Again, it goes back to the lack of trust and the underlying patriarchal mindset that "we know best". That was the mindset that women, who were forced into these institutions in the first place, were faced with. They were told, "We know best and this is what we need to do for you and your well-being." It is total and utter nonsense. It has caused devastation to the women and to the children born to them who are now adults. In some cases that generational trauma still exists in all aspects of people lives.

As I said in my last contribution, there is an apology but it really does not mean very much and we are still doing the same thing. There are major issues with the birth information tracing legislation. People are having serious issues when trying to access their records. Now we are saying that the clock is ticking and if they do not comply with the timeframe, the time is up. The scheme is wrong to begin with in the sense that it is not fair or equitable. If someone is entitled to it, how can missing the 180-day deadline mean they are not entitled to it? We should not be putting that in there. I do not think there are any technicalities or reasons where if somebody is entitled to it they should be signed off at some point because they did not comply and did not come back.

It should be open to them to come back in the future. Sometimes when the debate is split over two days it gets disjointed. I now feel I know why the five-year rule is being put in place because if they miss that, then sorry, that ship has sailed for them. Irrespective of how anybody tries to dress up this, it is a cost-saving measure.

We cannot look at trauma and human rights abuses through the lens of cost savings. They must be seen for the human rights abuses on the part of the State and the religious institutions that they were. The pharmaceutical companies also played a role through the illegal vaccine trials. We should be going after the churches and pharmaceutical companies. They have acknowledged and apologised for their role. That means nothing, given that they do not want to pay towards the redress scheme, but it gives the State the opportunity to consider pursuing them through the courts if needed.

I do not support amendment No. 56. It is not right to ask for additional information when we know the information is limited. The State cannot tell someone looking for his or her records that it has limited information only to then tell that person he or she needs to give it additional information in order to apply for the scheme. That is hypocrisy.

See this speech in context