Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The collaborative forum of former residents of mother and baby homes and related institutions asked for this, the Clann report asked for this, the Department of Education pre-consultation report asked for this and so on.

The OAK report, the Minister will remember, was a consultative report that was done. It was very good. It took on board people's views. The OAK report, prior to the mother and baby home redress scheme, pointed out that it was important and then the mother and baby home report itself, for all its faults, made a recommendation, weak and all as it was, that religious orders should be approached for their records. I wonder did anybody approach the religious orders after that mother and baby home report? Perhaps the Minister is seeking the answer there on his phone but it is important to know whether anyone followed up on that recommendation, notwithstanding its weakness in relation to records from the religious orders. That is one question. The Minister might answer that in his summing up. I will be back in the Chair at that stage but I would appreciate an answer. Was that recommendation followed up?

Then we go back to the McAleese report. I remember reading that. Words fail me, as I get older, when I stand here after all the reports. It seems that reports are written to deflect, to divert, to hide, to obfuscate. The McAleese report certainly did that. It was there specifically to see what was the State involvement in the Magdalen laundries and whether they were run on a profit basis. They made a finding that they were not, of course, but that was not based on anything because evidence was missing and documents were missing. One was one of the Magdalen laundries in Dublin and the other was the one in Galway, which distinguished itself by a lack of documentation, notwithstanding that I have read in other reports, including the mother and baby home report, that detailed reports were given at regular intervals of the profit, and the money going in and out, in the Magdalen laundry in Galway to the bishop of Galway. Has he been asked? Has that diocese been asked for any records that it has? I note from this that some religious orders still are refusing to hand over or are causing problems.

I welcome it next week. However, it is as good as we can do at this point under pressure in terms of preservation of documents, non-destruction, creating an offence and for the National Archives to be able to request a statement. In the brief time I had with the Minister, yesterday or the day before, I asked, if that statement is required, what is the period of time allowed for that statement to be completed and sent back by the religious orders. Will the Minister clarify what is the offence if they do not and how will this happen? We are still utterly dependent on the voluntary nature of it, notwithstanding that it will be an offence not to preserve them and to destroy them. Will the Minister tell me how will that be enacted? The Minister has had no co-operation from the religious orders in relation to the mother and baby home redress scheme and making contributions. We have somebody working away, apparently beavering on our behalf, to intervene as a mediator. I do not know where that is at but judging from the outside, there has been no co-operation from the religious orders for the mother and baby home redress scheme.

I will finish on the mother and baby redress scheme and take the opportunity to say I am on record as deploring the arbitrary nature of the cut-off point of six months. The best way I brought that home was with a TD - I do not want to mention him again - who had a baby at the time. I told the Deputy he was wasting his time loving that baby for six months because, according to the Government theory, nought to six months is a tabula rasa. I cannot repeat that often enough. The Minister has arbitrarily excluded babies only a day on the right side of six months on no basis notwithstanding that a list of psychotherapists and psychologists wrote to him - I never saw it in my life - such was their concern at the arbitrary nature of that cut-off point. Of course, people who were boarded out are not getting a look-in, as are people of mixed race who also suffered. I am bringing this up because we do not seem to learn at any stage that when we are making redress, it must be comprehensive. We cannot continue because of cost-saving mechanisms in the Department or some mentality that says we cannot do that because it will be much too expensive when we know, from what Deputy Kerrane said, that the money has not been used and people are not coming forward in their droves and overwhelming the Department or the coffers of the State. Quite the opposite is the case. Where is the scope now, with the money we have ,to get rid of that arbitrary line? No doubt it will be challenged in the court. It simply will be challenged in the court. There is a chance to do it right and to make redress mean something.

I have mixed feelings about a national monument and a national site of conscience in Dublin. The way we deal with conscience is to apologise profoundly and with meaning and then to make redress to those who have suffered. We will struggle with our conscience because we were all part of a society that allowed that but the best way to make redress, in my opinion, is to as best as possible help those who went through such a vicious system to continue to live with dignity, with independence and knowing that we have learnt a lesson. That is not happening.

Perhaps the Minister could clarify the mechanics of how we will make these amendments, when we see them and when they become law. How will we enforce them and will the Minister tell me how the National Archives or anyone else who is involved in the implementation of this Bill will be resourced? What resources are necessary, what estimates have been carried out and will the resources be provided?

See this speech in context