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

Before I got up to speak, I was thinking that in this House we have got into a habit of making very sincere and profound apologies. Very often, the quality of the apology is very good, and I do not wish in any way to take away from some of the apologies that have been made recently, which were sincere and well articulated, but what we are not always so good at is the follow-through. That has been the case, not just for the survivors of residential institutions, who are at issue in the legislation before the House, but what was effectively a regime of residential institutions which were connected in lots of ways. The Magdalen laundries, residential schools, county homes and the mother and baby homes were all part of the same superstructure. There was a whole philosophy of putting people in residential institutions, often in ways that were a long way less than voluntary, and imposing significant hardship on them. Typically, these were people from the margins of society. In many instances, their experiences and what they endured pushed them even further to the margins of society. An awful lot of the people who went through the industrial schools and residential institutions were profoundly scarred by what they experienced and the hardship and trauma they suffered. Many of them have had very difficult lives since then. In spite of all its flaws, that is the reason Caranua was set up.

The reason these issues come into this House is that there is a general acceptance that the State was responsible and that it had a role to play, and should have played a greater role, in preventing the abuses that happened and should not have turned a blind eye. It was responsible for ensuring that the harm which came about did not happen.

We should do much better than this legislation. A number of issues have been flagged to me by survivors. I have been in contact in the past with people who were previously part of the process and there was a frustration on the part of the consultative group that the communication after the Covid-19 pandemic was not what it could have been. There were a few meetings before the pandemic but the first contact thereafter was when survivors were informed of what was happening next rather than their being in a position to feed into it. There is frustration and disappointment that a number of supports are not being provided. The pension is one such issue. It is important that medical card provision is enhanced. Access to information, the records of survivors, is important. I also note the issues in respect of Britain. Many people have raised the issue of the means testing of payments by the Department of Work and Pensions in Britain and the North, and the implications for people living in the North or in Britain who receive redress.

The legislation should ensure that all survivors of residential institutions covered by the Bill have equal access to all the supports outlined, irrespective of whether they have already received an award or settlement from the Residential Institutions Redress Board.

We will try to table amendments but obviously that will be challenging because they will incur charges on the Exchequer. Tabling amendments to legislation such as this is not always easy. While I am sure we will attempt to do so, I ask the Minister of State and his officials to try to consider the areas in which the provision can be expanded to ensure that the injustices these people and their families face are rectified better than they are in this legislation and to the best effect possible.

See this speech in context