Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)

Can I speak on this? I was not sure what the format was. I want to support any Bill that gives supports to survivors. I am now in a dilemma as I cannot support this Bill. I will outline why this is the case. I will go back over 22 years of apologies. As usual, I thank the staff in the library for their wonderful work setting this out. I recommend it to any new TD. The library can set out the whole background to a topic. I have been here for some of that background. I am no expert but, I repeat, I have both personal and professional experience. The Minister says that other schemes have done this and we are staying with the other schemes. All of the other schemes have been found to be badly defective in many ways. Let us start with the apologies. We have had 22 years of apologies. It is very important to remind people of this. The Government says things like "We are doing this and it is very important that we put it through for the survivors". Nothing was to happen like this without the survivors being involved. Despite the scepticism of the survivors, the special advocate, on their behalf, produced a report, as I have said already. I am allergic to repetition, but it is really important. This was the scheme that was going to be different. In this scheme, we were going to listen to the survivors and the advocate and have an inclusive scheme, because that is what they asked for. Really, in the scheme of things, it is very limited. I accept the Minister's bona fides but I cannot accept what she is saying, because the system is failing to learn. It is just perpetuating the injustice over and over again to save a few pennies. I find that unacceptable.

Let us look at the apologies. In 1999, this apology did not come from a proactive Government but rather from some of the work by Mary Raftery and Donal O'Flaherty subsequently, in the book States of Fear, and all the other books and documentaries. Finally, in 1999, we got an apology, after a century and more of incarceration. In May 1999, the then Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern apologised on behalf of the State to survivors of child abuse in institutions. Following that, the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was set up. This was chaired by Mr. Justice Sean Ryan. He published his report in 2009. I will read out what he said. It is really important because we forget:

... an outdated system enabled by the funding model. The system of funding through capitation grants led to demands by Managers for children to be committed to Industrial Schools for reasons of economic viability of the institutions.

This was not for the children's sake but for the economic viability of the schools.

Mr. Justice Ryan mentioned a fundamentally flawed system of inspection by the Government. He also noted the Department of Education's deferential and submissive attitude towards the religious congregations compromised its ability to fulfil its statutory duty of inspection. He noted that the inspectors lacked the power to insist on changes. I will not read it all out but it is on page 16 in the digest. It is worth reading the summary. Mr. Justice Ryan went on to note a systemic use of corporal punishment and a climate of fear created by pervasive, excessive and arbitrary punishment, permeated most institutions and all of those run for boys. Complaints to the Department were not properly investigated.

Mr. Justice Ryan noted that sexual abuse was endemic in boys' institutions and referred to predatory sexual abuse against girls. I have difficulty reading the fact that sexual abuse was endemic in boys' institutions but I have a duty to read it out. Sexual abuse was endemic in boys' institutions and I will come back to the religious orders that have failed to live up to their responsibilities. Sexual abuse was not systemic in girls' institutions but they were subjected to predatory sexual abuse by male employees, visitors and in outside placements, which we have not dealt with at all. The report noted that sexual abuse by religious staff tended to be dealt with using internal disciplinary procedures of canon law. Gardaí were not informed. On the rare occasions that the Department of Education was informed, it colluded in the silence; it colluded in the abuse of innocent children. All children are innocent. This is the Ryan report.

Prior to that, we were fully aware of what was going on because we were told. Fr. Flanagan, the founder of Boys Town, back in the mid-20th century was disgusted by what was going on and set it out. We had the Kennedy report in the 1970s and the Cussen report in the 1930s. We knew what was going on. If we go forward from the apology in 1999, we got more apologies. We got an apology for the mother and baby homes and we got an apology for the Magdalen laundries. The UN committee said that the apologies were good but were undermined by subsequent actions of the Government and subsequent schemes. We look at them and ask what schemes were set up. As regards the 15,000 survivors of the redress scheme, I was there in a professional capacity. It remains a crime for me to say what the settlement was. It remains a crime for the person who got an award to say so. That is what we did in the 20th and 21st centuries. We are making it a crime to disclose. Survivors were subjected to an adversarial system. They were subjected to letters coming from religious orders that did not have the courage to turn up but sent their legal teams in with a letter.

That letter was put to the applicants by way of cross-examination, with nobody there to assist them. That is what happened with the redress scheme. In all of this consultation, survivors and their families tell us that it was more abuse. We are now putting a scheme through based on that utterly flawed system.

If we move to the Magdalen laundries legislation, we can see that, if nothing else, it sets out clearly that the Government and the State had a duty to inspect and they did not do so. Then a scheme was set up. We asked Mr. Justice Quirke to set out the criteria for the scheme. One of the things he said was that, at the very least, those involved should get the Health (Amendment) Act, medical card, but that did not happen. Subsequently, it was found that quite a number of women and institutions had been left out. Those women had to fight the whole way to the High Court. The Ombudsman issued a damning report on the scheme the Government had gone to all the trouble to ask Mr. Justice Quirke about. Although he set out clearly what should happen, what he said was ignored.

Then we go forward to the report on the mother and baby homes, which the Government got in October 2020 but did not disclose until the following January. It was only afterwards that the Government told survivors on a Zoom call what was in the report. The narrative was shaped, just like the executive summary.

I am using the time available because this might be the last time I get a chance to speak on this subject. It is extremely important to put this on the record now in a new Dáil with many new TDs. There is a whole background to this Bill. The Government has never been proactive in coming forward, despite its apologies.

The report on the mother and baby homes was not made public until January 2021, after the Zoom call to which I referred. I remember speaking about it in the convention centre. I did my best to read the executive summary over an afternoon and a night with the help of my staff. It turns out that I was the only TD who got a copy of it. I stood up the following day thinking all TDs had it. We had a discussion on the mother and baby homes report without anyone but me having it. I pay tribute to the researchers who did the work in respect of the report. The executive summary, with its particular narrative, is appalling. Nothing was learned.

One good scheme was set up by the Department of Education. The latter provided limited funds of €12 million, which quickly ran out. The €12 million came from two tranches of money from the religious orders. I will come back to that. I have heard no complaint about the Department of Education in regard to that scheme. It gave money to provide some redress and to help people return to education, but it also did it for the children, grandchildren and stepchildren. That element is completely absent from this legislation. We did not learn from the good schemes and we continue to perpetuate the bad schemes.

We can fast forward to Caranua, which means new friend, but really it was the old enemy in disguise. I have said that about five times now in different speeches. Its board was set up without proper regulation. In fact, the CEO went out on paid leave because of something she said that I will not repeat. Her comments about survivors indicate that she was clearly not fit for the job. The comments she made were absolutely appalling. The sum of €15,000 was given out. Then, in the middle of the scheme, Caranua felt it was running out of money and stopped the payments. There were arguments over white fridges and so on. The point I make is that Caranua was defective, just like the Magdalen scheme had been defective.

Before I finish, I wish to refer to the religious orders. After the apology and the Ryan report, some of the findings of which I read out, the religious orders were forced to give €128 million. In return, they were given an indemnity. They never had to worry again about a single case being taken against them because the State gave them an indemnity. The €12 million for the superb education fund was taken out of the €128 million. The only drawback was that the amount involved was limited to €12 million. The finding of the Comptroller and Auditor General is that the Government paid a total of €125 billion for redress.

If we fast forward to 2009 when the Ryan report was published, some of the religious orders were embarrassed to come forward again. The Christian Brothers reneged on it. The religious orders gave another €125 million or thereabouts. That is all that has ever been given. The previous Government told us that it had a negotiator talking to the religious orders to see if they would make further contributions. That has not been mentioned here today. The religious orders have not come forward at all. They have got away with holy murder.

I have never blamed the religious orders because successive Governments and politicians colluded. The middle classes benefited from workers from the Magdalen laundries and mother and baby homes. There is blame on the religious orders, who have a higher duty, because they practice Christianity. They were forced to come forward through being given an indemnity. Can one imagine that? If we fast forward, they then gave €125 million. We have survivors struggling and then we bring in the mother and baby homes redress scheme, but we exclude all babies under six months on the basis that babies under six months do not feel or see anything – they are a tabula rasa. One can let one's baby cry. More than 20 psychotherapists wrote to the previous Minister and Government asking them not to do this because it was arbitrary. That is all on file. They asked the Government to please not exclude babies under six months because the first six months of life are fundamental to child development. The scheme ignored the advice on babies under six months, as well as ignoring all those who were boarded out and those who suffered because they were of mixed race.

That was the mother and baby homes redress, and this is the latest one. We ignored the survivors, the special advocate and the women and men who came forward and put aside their disbelief and scepticism for one last chance for the system to listen to them. In the overall scheme of things, we are talking about a limited number of people. We should give them reassurance that they will not end up in institutions again, because I know the fear they have of ending up again in an institution in older life. It is devastating for survivors that they would ever again be under the control of officials or those in power. I do not think it is that hard. We have put aside billions. We have apologised repeatedly, yet we keep bringing up defective schemes for survivors, to which we are supposed to give the thumbs-up.

I accept the Minister's bona fides but, as a mother and a woman, I question that a mother and baby homes scheme would be brought in on an arbitrary basis to save money, particularly as the Department said money needed to be saved following the numbers that were crunched. The religious orders got away with holy murder – forgive the use of bad words – while their assets increase in value all the time.

It is too late to appeal to the Minister not to put this Bill through, but those are my reasons for not being able to support it. She might address the consultation process we set up when we put in place a special advocate who had a very special background that gave her great understanding in all the roles she has played. She set out clearly what is to be done. The Minister and the Department ignored that, however, all to save a few pence. I cannot support the Bill.

See this speech in context