Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 1 has been ruled out of order.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 2 and 58 to 62, inclusive, are related and may be taken together.

Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:

“Report on operation of Scheme

2.(1) The Minister shall cause a report on the operation of the Scheme to be commenced on the day that is six months after the establishment day and to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as practicable after its completion.

(2) A report under this section shall consider the following matters:

(a) whether and to what extent persons engaged in the management, administration or operation of relevant institutions should be permitted or required to contribute to the cost of making payments under this Act;

(b) whether the 180 days residence requirement provided for in section 13(1) and (4) should be amended or repealed;

(c) whether the Scheme should be extended so as to make provision for recognising persons who were boarded out as children as relevant persons;

(d) whether there is a need to provide for additional institutions in Schedule 1;

(e) whether the requirement imposed on applicants by section 27(3) should be removed;

(f) whether the duration of the Scheme should be extended;

(g) whether payment rates under the Scheme should be increased.”.

I acknowledge that it was Deputy Sherlock who originally proposed this amendment on Committee Stage. This redress scheme is a deeply insulting and disrespectful response to the unimaginable pain and suffering endured by thousands of people at the hands of the State and church. It is a shameful and intentionally inadequate response to the scale and magnitude of State-sanctioned abuse, violence and injustices perpetuated against girls and women, victims of rape and incest, disabled people and people of colour. While no amount of money can ever compensate the survivors, this is about recognition and the State fully and completely owning up to its past. Instead, the Government is clearly and loudly declaring that only the trauma of some survivors matters and only some violations will be recognised.

Mother and baby homes, institutions and county homes were involved in criminality and extreme human rights violations. They targeted abuse at some of the most vulnerable people in society. The Government's Bill intentionally excludes 40% of survivors, dismissing the pain and trauma of whole categories of people with arbitrary and cruel thresholds and zero understanding of trauma and transitional justice.

Unfortunately, this amendment is the only way we can legitimately raise the most egregious aspects of this so-called redress scheme. The substantial changes needed to remove the massive exclusions and denial of justice cannot be discussed. The Government is using its money message, as the expansion of the scheme would have a budgetary implication, to prevent even the consideration of these essential matters.

The scheme should include those who suffered forced family separation, people who were boarded out and people subjected to illegal medical trials. The survivors, with whom the Minister consulted strongly, advocated for the scheme to recognise all survivors. Numerous UN human rights officials also called for this and all Members have received hundreds of emails from ordinary Irish people on this matter. Despite all of that, the Minister is determinedly and wilfully telling up to 40% of survivors that their horrific experiences and the breach of their human rights are not sufficient or valid enough to be acknowledged in the scheme.

Compounding this is the fact that we cannot talk directly about these issues today. I cannot propose an amendment for the scheme to include children who spent less than six months in a mother and baby home or county home. I cannot propose an amendment that recognises the horrendous crimes of forced family separation or illegal adoption. I cannot propose an amendment to ensure the scheme covers approximately 5,000 people who were boarded out as children. I cannot propose an amendment to acknowledge the children illegally experimented on by pharmaceutical companies facilitated by the State and religious orders. I cannot propose an amendment to provide redress for mixed-race survivors who endured particular abuse and discrimination. The only relevant amendment I can propose is to seek a report on the scheme, after six months, that would consider these fundamental flaws. I emphasise that again. After years of campaigning by survivors and advocates, after evidence from human rights experts and after thousands of ordinary people contacted us, the only thing I and other Opposition Deputies can do today is ask the Minister to consider a report. There are no words for how much this Government has failed survivors and now the rules of the House are failing them.

The number and categories of survivors being excluded from the scheme are deliberate. The Minister, the Government and senior officials in both the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform are all aware of these issues. They know what the OAK report's recommendations from survivors were, what UN bodies and officials have told us and what the Irish people want and they do not care. The denial of justice and disregard of survivors are startling. The Minister is directly responsible for crafting and leading this process, but every Government backbencher and Independent who quietly votes with the Government shares culpability for this injustice.

This amendment is the only instrument we have to discuss any of these issues. It is a gesture, a last call for some decency. Anyone who has engaged with survivors recently, or seen their posts on social media, will know they are tired. Survivors know the State will ultimately win. They have been worn down, so well done to the Minister and the Department as it seems that was the goal from the beginning. I am genuinely struggling to find the words to describe how wrong this is, to sum up how this redress scheme is more insulting than nothing and that it is just a new form of abuse, and I cannot even propose a meaningful amendment.

There is an opportunity to show some sort of decorum and understanding by letting this amendment pass. We know the Minister will ignore the report in any case but perhaps it will give his successor a basis to bring in a new and proper redress scheme. At this stage, all I can hope for is a new Government that will be willing to stand up for survivors and finally give them something more than empty promises.

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome members of the Tuam Mother and Baby Home Alliance in the Public Gallery who have been active not only on this aspect of the scheme but on everything connected with the mother and baby institutions over the years.

I speak in support of amendment No. 2 and my amendment No. 62, which is similar. I agree with Deputy Cairns that it was Deputy Sherlock who first gave us the idea that we could seek the publication of a report as it would mean our amendments would not be ruled out of order. There are very important aspects of this scheme that need to be discussed. If people were genuinely looking into their hearts, they could not support these aspects of the scheme.

I do not understand how a person born in an institution who spent less than six months there can be excluded. A person who spent seven months in an institution would be included, yet another person who spent five months, three weeks and three days in the same institution would be excluded. We cannot quantify the horrors, abuse and appalling treatment inflicted on women and children under the eyes of the State, and the religious institutions - let us not forget them. The State mainly oversaw these institutions. We cannot say that the suffering of a person who spent one month in an institution is less than that of a person who spent six months, a year or longer in one. It is very cynical and leaves out 40% of survivors. We all know it is a cost-saving measure by the Government. It can be dressed up in any other way but the reality is it is the reason the Government is doing the scheme this way.

The scheme also excludes those who were boarded out. The argument for doing that is that it is difficult to identify people. With so many advocacy groups and people working with survivors of mother and baby institutions, it would be very easy to identify them. At a minimum, an attempt should be made to identify those who were boarded out and ensure they are included in this scheme. The costs would be astronomical for the State but if we are genuinely sorry, we need to stop talking about it and match our words with action. When I used to work for a trade union, we often came across people who would say it is not about the money. They wanted an apology and recognition of what was done to them. The best way of getting that is by a person showing action. A financial payment of redress is one of the best ways the State can do that. It can show its sincerity by getting rid of the six-month rule and not excluding those who were boarded out or certain institutions. The scheme includes only the institutions that were covered by the mother and baby home report, which we all know was flawed. There were huge issues with the report and an addendum was inserted in it.

So the State to a certain extent is acknowledging the flaws and the issues with that report yet all of the institutions that are not covered by it are also left out. Unfortunately, we will not be able to support this Bill because we cannot justify pitting survivors against each other - those with more than six months who were born in the institutions and those with less. It is impossible for us to support it.

I also want to mention the OAK report because as I have said before in this Chamber, for the most part, people were happy with the consultation process and felt they were listened to. The report was commissioned by the Department and now the very good recommendations of the report are being ignored. This is double cruelty. It is adding insult to injury to ignore all those reports when people were finally listened to properly. It is the same patriarchal mindset that forced women into the institutions in the first place and stood over stealing people's children. We are seeing the same mindset throughout this.

Mixed-race children were placed as babies not only in mother and baby homes but also in nurseries of other institutions. This is not being looked at in terms of a breach of international human rights. We have the chance to create a really good scheme that does not exclude people. I have often said that it is difficult to know how to put price on any of this but the very first thing you do is ensure you are not excluding somebody. A scheme that excludes 40% of the relevant people is wrong and flawed to begin with. We need to change that, include boarded-out children and all of the institutions and look at the actual report commissioned by the Department and its recommendations. I know there are a lot of amendments so I will speak on some of the other points later. I feel really strongly about the six months. I do not think any person could honestly say he or she believes that is fair and right. It is clearly a cost-saving measure and really needs to be removed.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not mind repeating some of the things I said the last time I spoke about this. I support this amendment wholeheartedly on the basis that it gives us a meagre opportunity to address the issues on behalf of the 24,000 survivors who were cold-heartedly excluded from the scheme. I do not know if the Minister thinks that way or if he thinks he needs to give them a reason but he has never given an acceptable reason for excluding people who spent six months or less in the homes. Is there a suggestion that six months of your life does not matter? Is it believed that the separation and the trauma of what happened to you and your family do not matter for the rest of your life? It is unfathomable. It looks like the work of a cold-hearted accountant whose main job is to minimise the cost to the State.

It is funny that we are revisiting this theme, having visited it over and over again in the Oireachtas in the past two days in the shape of a denial of redress and compensation to people in nursing homes or people with disabilities. There is a theme running through this from Brigid McCole to CervicalCheck to nursing homes and now to the survivors. The State scrimps and saves when it comes to looking after ordinary people, which is disgraceful, yet the Minister will come in another day and boast of the billions we have in reserve because we are doing so well. We have great multinationals and we do so well on corporation tax but we deny ordinary people their rights. This is outrageous. There is a significant amount of anger about it. I am sure the Minister has been getting hundreds of emails, as have I and everyone else in this Chamber over the past couple of days regarding this issue. It is almost as if you can feel survivors are gasping for air. This is their last chance for somebody to listen and do something for them. Some of the emails are terribly sad but mostly it is the anger that comes through. The anger is speaking to the Minister, who claims that he is pursuing twin tenets of acting with kindness and doing no harm but in their words, this scheme's exclusions are heaping abuse upon abuse. Even this discussion and this Bill, which will be passed because the Government has a majority, is another act of abuse. It is another act of hurt, abuse and pain that ignores people's real lives. I am baffled that the Minister is not doing the right thing by survivors, that he will not widen redress, that he believes that what he is doing is okay and that somehow he thinks he is acting with kindness or having the interests of these people at heart. It is not. It is all about saving the State money.

At the same time, the State does not pursue the religious orders. I mentioned this previously. The Bon Secours order, which was responsible for a significant amount of this pain, hurt and abuse, is the biggest provider of private healthcare in the country and has lots of coffers, land and profits and we are still looking at a meagre system of redress that excludes almost 40% of the people who suffered under this system.

The Minister is signalling a complete failure of the State to recognise the lifelong consequences of forced family separation such as the loss of identity and the abuse this has meant for generations, and it is generations who suffer. It is not just the immediate survivors who suffer. That suffering and scarring is passed on almost like DNA to other generations because it hurts so much and leaves people in such isolation.

This is our chance to raise those concerns and I hope the House passes this very meagre amendment. Fair play to those who tabled this amendment to say we need that report, which will give us a chance to revisit this. We would love to scrap what the Government is doing and redesign a scheme that treats everybody fairly, equally and decently and not to have to stand over this Bill not for the rest of our lives but for the rest of their lives and all the future may contain.

This attitude runs through the Government and the State. You can go down a line from Brigid McCole to CervicalCheck to nursing homes and now this. The Government should hang its head in shame. I would have expected better from the Minister. I am not trying to personalise this but I would have expected better from him. I would have expected him to throw all his toys out of the pram until every single survivor was included and nobody was left behind.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I add my voice to those of the preceding speakers. It is vital that we ensure the redress process moves forward but the way this is being circumscribed is unacceptable, unconscionable and unreasonable. It is quite arbitrary in lots of ways.

A man came to visit me in my constituency office on Monday. He wanted to tell me about his experience. I told him that typically when we instance cases, we do not necessarily mention names but he said it was important to him that his name was mentioned because he said he did not want to be just a number. His name is Paul Lynch. He and his twin brother were fostered out at 23 months. They were 13 months in Roscrea and nine in Bessborough. They were taken away from their parents. Such was the insidious way the system operates, he believes that there was no legal basis for them to be fostered out and that their parents were married. He believes this can be proved. Still this was the basis on which they were fostered out. He never met his mother and it causes him enormous pain and upset to this day.

I have met many survivors over the years. He was just the most recent one. They are anxious. The State has accepted that redress is justified and necessary in the context of the huge pain and suffering that happened, the grievous injustice and the State's responsibility for that. Obviously these were private organisations and church organisations but the State was complicit and aware. It co-operated, participated and gave these organisations free rein to establish, run and perpetuate this regime.

It was part of a whole system. Sometimes we can talk about these things as separate and distinguish between the industrial schools, the Magdalen laundries, the mother and baby homes and the county homes.

While there were differences and there are different issues, ultimately they were all part of the same system and culture and reflected the same attitude to institutionalising people, particularly women, who fell outside of the mores and morality that had been deemed acceptable. Other things often came into it too, including race, class and all kinds of other snobbery.

It is clearly important that redress is delivered. Many people are concerned that we reach that point as early as possible and rightly so, because they have waited long enough and many survivors have been waiting for far too long. This proposal to exclude those who were boarded out or who spent less than six months in the institutions is incomprehensible to me. Some other institutions that were not specifically named in the report are excluded too. The six months seems incredibly arbitrary. It goes against so much of what we now understand about infant mental health, adverse childhood experiences and the impact that trauma can have right from the start. That separation would have been immensely traumatic for infants. It is being proposed to simply disregard that as if anything before six months is of no huge consequence or great significance. There is no other rationale for that cut-off point except that it is the attitude the Department has adopted; is é sin, nach raibh an phian nó an fhulaingt chomh dona roimh an sé mhí, gur chaith siad tréimhse ghearr ann agus dá bharr bhí siad ar a gcumas a saol a bheith acu ina dhiaidh sin agus nach raibh an tionchar céanna orthu. Is léir gur imríodh drochthionchar uafásach mór orthu agus go raibh tionchar á leanúint ar a gcuid saol tar éis é sin.

There is no doubt that it would have continued. It shaped the rest of their lives. Of course, in that context, they should be entitled to redress. I cannot understand any kind of rationale that would exclude them and likewise for the other institutions. It am not sure whether it is due to Standing Orders or the Department but it is a shame that we are so restricted in the amendments which can be tabled. There is still time, through these institutions, to revise this. The weight of public opinion is clear. The Whip shall apply but if one asked people privately, I think the weight of opinion in here would not favour this kind of restrictive approach. It is clear that the weight of opinion among survivors is appalled, and rightly so. I urge the Minister to please reconsider this through the forthcoming Stages. Tá súil agam go ndéanfaidh an tAire smaoineamh air seo agus gur féidir cur chuige níos deise, níos féaráilte agus níos córa a chur ar bun chun ceart agus cóir a thabhairt do na daoine a bhí sna hinstitiúidí seo.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In my seven minutes, I would like to deal with the amendment, because when I am in the Chair, I make people deal with amendments with relevant contributions. It is difficult not to refer to the overall context of this amendment. We put our names to that amendment. I thank Deputy Sherlock for having the foresight to see that this amendment might be left in while the others were ruled out. The first amendment I had was to deal with the Title. It sought simply to include anybody who had been resident in an institution, period. It was ruled out of order. I wanted that in the context of many reports, some of which can be seen here. In fairness to the visitors in the Gallery and to Catherine Corless in Tuam, without whom there would be nothing, this goes back to 2012, with eight years from 2012 to 2020 and three more since. During that time, we had various reports. I do not want to keep repeating this. This is our last opportunity unless the Minister sees sense tonight. When this is adjourned, I ask him to take on board what has been said.

We look at the human rights issues. We go from Catherine Corless in 2012. The commission was set up in 2015. There were eight interim reports in the end. The Minister kept the final report on a shelf from October until the following January, when he organised a webcam and told everybody the survivors were going to get a copy, but they did not. We have outlined this before. It is important to say it again because, all the time, we hear this lovely word that I cannot stand, "learnings". We are supposed to learn from experience and change. We have done nothing like that. We were supposed to learn from the original institutions redress scheme that made it a criminal offence for me, when I was a barrister, or my client to disclose what we got. This Dáil passed legislation criminalising the disclosure of the amount of money people got from the redress board.

Fast forward to the Magdalen laundries scheme, called maladministration by the Ombudsman, and to Caranua, which I have said many times is an abuse of the Irish language. "Cara nua" means "new friend", when really it was the old enemy in disguise. I have said this over and over and I have to repeat it. We are here tonight to address an amendment based on what we learned. We spoke about consultation. We got the OAK Consulting report. It is a private company which did a good job. It listened to the survivors. I understand that more than 500 came forward and said what they wanted. What jumps out from that is that they asked for no more division, no more discrimination, and inclusiveness. They asked to be listened to and included. They asked for the wrong to be acknowledged and for the apology to mean something for the future so that those who spent time in institutions and their families will have better lives as a result of the apology and the redress that we make. Redress in financial terms can never be enough. It must be part of an overall thing.

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, set out the principles that should be in the Title, which I could not even change one little bit. IHREC set out the guiding principles for relevant human rights and equality at a minimum. It listed what should be in the legislation so that we could learn and show survivors that we have learned. We have not done that either. The Minister has stood over a system where there has been so much exclusion from this, while his press releases have put an emphasis on what he has included. He has left out people who were boarded out and those from mixed-race relationships. They have made many submissions pointing out the trauma and range of suffering that was involved. There is also the issue of children under six months. I understand that when the Minister was asked about that, he said, "I suppose children who were in there less than six months wouldn't have been aware of their experiences and would have been too young to remember their experiences." We have the tabula rasaapproach of children being a blank sheet when they are born and still a blank sheet six months later, with nothing having affected them in any institution, not even this break with their mothers, so we exclude them completely. That is what the interdepartmental group did and the Minister is standing over that.

I am standing here with two minutes left to address an amendment that my name is on, in the hope that we can shake the Minister a little. He was on "Morning Ireland" this morning. All through my time in the Dáil, I really avoided personalising any debate, but he went on "Morning Ireland" and I waited with bated breath for the interviewer to ask him a question about the scheme he has boasted about as being the most expansive, most inclusive and biggest scheme ever to make redress, but there was not a single question from our national broadcaster. Was that accidental? When the Minister was asked how his Department came to exclude babies under six months, did he give answers to any papers or anyone who asked him, or did he come back and say that the Government is doing it for their good, that it does not want to upset them and that it does not want to tell them why it has excluded babies under six months? Tell me if I am wrong. I will be the first to say sorry because we all make mistakes.

I am here talking to an amendment which highlights seven parts to be included in a review after six months. That is the most basic thing the Minister could agree to in order that we could learn. It would give some meaning to the word "learnings". It is a ridiculous word that has been made up and makes a mockery of language. We are looking for a review after six months to see what we have actually learned from people on the ground. We have been forced to do this because most of our other amendments are out of order. If I was in the Chair, I would have to preside in that role too and say that they are out of order. There is something seriously amiss with this system when we have to do it like this.

This debate is scheduled to go to 8.30 p.m. If the Minister has any sense, he will put meaning into words and say he is willing to listen. There is a finite number of people in this group. They have bent over backwards to work with the Minister, work with us and tell us. I think we have learned more from our experience with survivors than the entity of the Government has ever learned or looks like it will ever learn.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, I commend all those who have fought and campaigned, and continue to campaign with the emails they are sending to us in this House and particularly to the Government. They are appealing to it, even at this late stage, to rethink what it is doing and not to deny the survivors of mother and baby homes the closure and justice they deserve. After all they have suffered and been through and all they have had to fight for, this day should be the day when they get that closure and justice. Instead, as the Minister well knows, they will not get that. Tens of thousands of people will feel excluded and insulted. The abuse, suffering and injustice they endured at the hands of the church and the State for decades and decades continues if the Minister denies them that closure and that justice. This is not just an insult to those who are excluded on the arbitrary grounds on which the Minister has excluded; it is an insult to every mother and child who suffered forced separation in the mother and baby homes. It shows a singular failure on the part of the Government to understand what the crime and the abuse was that it can come up with this arbitrary, unjustifiable scheme which includes some, excludes others and has a league table including a price tag which commodifies your suffering. Does the Minister not understand how insulting that is for all the people have suffered?

One of the particularly dark, terrible ironies of something else going on at the moment is that there are dark and sinister forces running around this city for the last few weeks who are claiming utterly falsely that vulnerable, desperate immigrants and asylum seekers are a threat to women and children in this State because they are foreigners. Those people need look no further than this House, the political institution that is supposed to represent the Irish people and the religious institutions. The Irish religious institutions and Irish political institutions orchestrated decades and decades of systematic abuse of mothers and children - not poor, desperate immigrants or asylum seekers - and the State is continuing to do this and to insult and abuse those who suffered. I searched the Minister's speech on Second Stage and his other speeches in vain for any justification by him of this arbitrary exclusion.

I am an adoptee, as the Minister knows. I was born in a mother and baby home. I was in a couple of them, actually, because I was sent off to England to be ushered out of sight. The child of a fallen woman, an illegitimate child; that is how the mothers and the children were characterised. I was then brought back. I do not even know how long I was in a mother and baby home. It is irrelevant whether you were there for one week, one day, six months or two years because the central crime that church and State committed was the primal wound of separating a mother from their child which, from the moment it happens, has a lifelong affect on mother and child. It is the primal wound that begins on day one. I always say that my story turned out to be lucky. I was eventually reunited with my mother and I was adopted by a wonderful family. Regardless of whether your story of what happened is terrible - and for some it is absolutely terrible; they suffered all their lives because of the primal wound inflicted by church and State when they were boarded out, suffered abuse, as mothers were forced to work essentially as slaves, were shamed all their lives and had to endure the stigma of illegitimacy - the truth is that to a greater or lesser extent everyone had a crime committed against them from day one when they were torn out of the arms of their mother and the lives they would have lived were taken from them because of the twisted, perverted morality of church and state that deemed some people legitimate, some people illegitimate and some women "fallen women". It is shocking, perverted and twisted stuff. Now we have a league table of arbitrary exclusions and a failure to acknowledge the individual, specific suffering that some people may have endured because of being boarded out, because of discrimination because they were mixed race, or whatever it was. It is shocking and still we have no justification.

I appeal to the Minister, if he is serious, and to the officials or whoever came up with this plan, even at this last moment. We do not just want a report. That is just a way of trying to force a debate. I am putting it to the Minister at the last minute that he needs to rethink this so that people can finally get the closure and the justice. He should step back from this now and listen to the survivors, the people who are at the wrong end of the systematic abuse and crimes that church and State committed. For God's sake, do not negotiate with the religious organisations that were responsible. There is no negotiation required. Take their assets off them and make them pay the redress and all the compensation for the crimes that they have committed. We should not be talking to them. We should be telling them.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, I welcome the members of the Tuam Mother and Baby Home Alliance who are in the Visitors' Gallery listening to the debate this evening. Let us take as an example what happened in Tuam between 1925 and 1961. It took the courage of Catherine Corless to come up with the findings on that. Listen to the outcry among the public at what happened there and in other places. The light of hope came from the fact that first, the State apologised and a redress scheme was going to be put in place for the survivors. I have spoken to a large number of survivors. It is not about the money. It is about the principle, which is that anyone who was in a mother and baby home - any child who was separated from their mother and any mother who was separated from their child from birth - is a survivor.

There is no such thing as an apprenticeship for six months before you feel anything. Every child deserves that to be said for them. There is no reason to put a timeframe on it. Anybody who has been affected by this and who has been separated from their mother should, in all honesty, be included in the redress scheme. Some very good amendments have been put down which have been ruled out of order for one thing and one thing only, that is, because it is a cost to the State. That is the damning thing about what is going on here.

I know the Minister wants to do the right thing but the people in the Gallery, and all survivors across this country, deserve what was intended to be their ray of hope after years of holding a secret themselves. People here have spoken passionately about it, far better than I ever could. There is an opportunity right now, this evening, for us as politicians to stand up, hold up our heads, put out our chests and say we are going to do the right thing for all these people.

I ask the Minister to consider that everybody who was in a mother and baby home and everybody who was separated be included in the redress scheme, and that anybody who was fostered out also be included. There is no logical reason people should be excluded or to create division. We should not categorise survivors. It is unbelievable when you think about it. We have to consider the survivors, what they have said and what they continue to say. This Bill is meant to do something for survivors but in effect it is actually a negative, given that 40% of survivors will be ruled out of the redress scheme for no reason other than a decision that was made to save money. I cannot see any other reason for it.

People have waited a long time for justice. The Minister has done a lot of good work since he came into office and I respect him and the work he has done. We talk about the past and the dark days but today we can shine some light or some ray of hope on this horrid saga. We as politicians right across the House should be able to agree we will do the right thing. I cannot say it any other way. I cannot support the Bill as it is because we are excluding people from it. I ask the Minister to consider it, to go back to his officials and say we have to do this right or not do it at all.

People are truly upset, which they should not be. They have had enough upset in their lives. People are concerned and they have been sending us messages over the past number of days. I have probably received up to 500 messages, each of which I replied to out of respect for these people because that is the least they deserve. We just need to call a halt and look at what we are doing and what we are trying to achieve. What we are trying to achieve is justice and justice is not served if 40% of the people are ruled out. I plead with the Minister to please reconsider the whole issue of the six months.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no testimony more compelling than that of Deputy Boyd Barrett today because that is a first-hand account. If that does not impact on all of us, and particularly on the Government, then we are in cold times as regards the promulgation of this legislation. I put forward this amendment on Committee Stage because like others, we in the Opposition feel so constrained in seeking to amend legislation. The only tool we have in our toolkit so as to avoid a charge on the Exchequer is to put down these amendments and seek to have them repeated from Committee to Report Stage.

This amendment is proportionate. The Minister will say it is not but I would argue with him that it is because this scheme is vast in its undertaking and given the number of people who would be potentially omitted from it, we believe that at the very minimum this amendment deserves to be passed. All it calls for is a report into "whether and to what extent persons engaged in the management, administration or operation of relevant institutions should be permitted or required to contribute to the cost of making payments under this Act". I do not see how that is disproportionate. It seems reasonable to me. Second, the report would examine "whether the 180 days residence requirement provided for in section 13(1) and (4) should be amended or repealed". There is nothing wrong with looking back at a section of legislation that has been passed to ask whether it is fit for purpose and whether it should be reviewed. Third, the report would look into "whether the Scheme should be extended so as to make provision for recognising persons who were boarded out as children as relevant persons".

When I put forward my amendment, which I am happy to share with colleagues, the Minister addressed the issue of the 180 days on Committee Stage. He said:

Absences of up to 180 days will not disqualify somebody from making a claim. The reason for that is that we know there were people who, because of what happened in the institutions, the ill health they suffered, the poor conditions or the poor treatment, spent large amounts of time not in the home but in hospital, often returning to the home ...

We just want those people to be included. We want any report into or review of the scheme to ensure those people are included so they are not excluded forever or so the next generation of politicians is not revisiting this in 20 or 30 years' time. If the lessons of the last week or two are anything to go by, we will be revisiting this, mark my words, as sure as night follows day. The people who were aged from zero to six months will wish for this to be revisited somewhere down the line. I have no doubt about that. The evidence of the correspondence we have received should be enough to jolt any government into action in respect of that cohort of people who need for this to be dealt with, now and in a contemporary way - not down the line but now. That is the hallmark of fairness, for it to be dealt with in the here and now.

In the amendment, we are looking specifically for a report into whether the duration of the scheme should be extended. That is not unreasonable. We were very conscious when we were putting forward the wording of this amendment that we would seek to be reasonable in our approach. We did not want to be rhetorical but ask the Minister in the hope he would see that nothing we are requesting here is unreasonable or disproportionate. That is why we find ourselves here today on Report Stage, because we failed on Committee Stage to have those measures put into the legislation and we are now asking again. We are coming back to the table to ask that those people be looked after.

Looking at the Minister's response in respect of section 42 of the Act, he again stated:

The intention of section 42 is for two reviews to be conducted on the scheme. One is an interim review to be commenced two years after the establishment day while the other is to be commenced after the completion of the scheme. Section 42 sets out a list of matters that should be considered as part of these reviews and allows for the Minister to specify any additional matter.

The Minister has the power to specify any additional matter. Furthermore, he stated, "Section 12 provides that the chief deciding officer shall prepare an annual report on the performance of his or her function and that each annual report will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas."

We are putting much store in what the chief deciding officer will determine. The Minister can "specify any additional matter." Those were the Minister's words when he spoke on Committee Stage. I am sure he will repeat those words at Report Stage. All we are asking is for the report on the operation of the scheme to include the subsections we have set out in amendment No. 2. That is not an unreasonable request. I say this in an absolutely non-partisan way and in the spirit and tone of being very conscious about the impact of this issue on society. There is a psychological scar on society because of this issue and the attempts by this generation of politicians who have this mandate now to try to improve the scheme in a way that ensures we will not be revisiting this at some future date.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I, too, welcome the Tuam Mother and Baby Home Alliance to the Gallery today. I commend its members on their hard work and perseverance with regard to the campaigning they have been doing. One quarter of the amendments, many of which are reasonable, have been ruled out of order, which is incredible. Will the Minister accept any amendments tonight?

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will look through the amendments as they come up.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This legislation is long overdue but it is incredibly flawed, specifically, in how it proportions redress based on the time a person has spent in an institution. That is obvious to anybody who reads this legislation. Who is the Minister to determine that someone who has spent 179 days in an institution is any less deserving of compensation than someone who has spent 181 days in an institution? It is absurd.

From speaking to survivors, it is clear to me that much of the abuse occurred when they were farmed out or boarded out from their homes. In many cases, people who were born in mother and baby homes were sent to local families where they were often ill-treated. They were required to work hard on the farm without pay and with no prospect of inheritance, in atrocious conditions, sleeping in sheds, sometimes with animals, and eating their dinner separately from the biological children in the family. This is not to mention the stories of physical, emotional and sexual abuse of the worst kinds that were experienced by so many, or the societal attitudes at the time that so many of these survivors had to deal with. They were deemed by many people to be second-class citizens, an attitude that was certainly the case in Tuam and that was reinforced, in many ways, in the State's education system.

Catherine Corless often talks about how the phrase "home babies" was used to separate other children in the national school, and how children who misbehaved in school were often treated with the statement, "If you do not stop, I will put you sitting with the home babies." This Bill makes no provision for persons who might have left an institution early but were placed by the State in settings where they were still abused, still suffered and were still othered.

I thank my parliamentary assistant, Mr. Luke Silke, who hails from Tuam and who has put a lot of work into drafting these amendments that seek to write the wrongs and injustices that are clear in this legislation. I sincerely hope the Government and Minister will listen to the debate and that he meant what he said when he told me he would listen to and take into consideration what we have to say.

An amendment pertaining to the Glenamaddy home has been omitted from the Bill. This institution is long closed but it is possible that some survivors are still alive. Even if there are not, it is important that we recognise the lives that were spent or lost there. I am thinking of Mary Crowe, who died from TB 100 years ago today in Glenamaddy at the age of one. She was one of more than 50 children who died between 1922 and 1925 in Glenamaddy for whom Mr. Silke has obtained a death certificate.

Some of the amendments we are seeking to bring forward relate to the time restrictions. Basically, we want to see a situation where applicants to the scheme are granted a decision within a period of three months and in a speedy fashion. Many of these people are of a certain age and need to have these decisions made fast. Within one year of the application, they should be given access to all their files and documents. That needs to happen. We cannot seek to withhold information from people. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure timely redress to people who need it.

I have also tabled amendments that will seek to ensure that the scheme, when it is up and running, will seek to initiate and make contact with the survivors rather than just relying on survivors to initiate contact with the scheme. If the State is truly sorry for the way it has treated survivors, it would be actively reaching out to them and asking people for help in the process of redress rather than just sitting back and waiting for people to make contact.

I want to mention a very special lady today. Ms Sheila O'Byrne gave birth in an institution. She cycles regularly to the gates of the Dáil in rain, hail or snow with little handwritten placards and stands outside to hold this House to account and ensure there is justice for her and others like her. She is a fierce and formidable woman with a very big heart. I urge other Deputies to stop to chat to her if they get an opportunity because there is much they can learn from her.

Throughout the history of the State, the survivors of the mother and baby homes were made to feel that their lives, due to the circumstances in which they were conceived, were of less value than the lives of others. This is wrong and this needs to be refuted wholeheartedly, as many times as we can. All human life is equal. They have as much right to this country as anybody else. They have as much right to life as anyone else. They have as much right to the Dáil and to justice as anyone else and anybody who has implied otherwise, at any stage of their lives, is absolutely wrong. The State must never stop apologising for how it has treated survivors. In reality, it needs to go beyond an apology. It needs to provide recompense for the wrongs that have been inflicted on these individuals. It must be done fairly and with a little bit of humanity. That is sorely missing from many aspects of this Bill. It is a shocking situation. It is deeply frustrating for the likes of myself. We tabled nine amendments, seven of which have been ruled out of order. Seven logical, reasonable, common-sense solutions to help have been ruled out of order, and I believe that is an injustice too.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First I will address the people who are here in the Public Gallery. I welcome them. I am glad they are here but I am sad that they have to be here. Like others over the years, I have heard the horror stories about what people have had to endure.

Children born into this world have only one chance at childhood. For the majority of people, all we want is that our children have happy-go-lucky, carefree and happy times and that when they grow up into adulthood, they can look back on their memories with fondness and smile and think of long summer days maybe out in a field of hay or going to the bog cutting turf and helping out, doing the ordinary, simple things such as going up a country lane to pick strawberries. We wish that they will have nice memories of doing nice things.

Some of us are fortunate enough that when we look back on our youth, that is what we think of. We now have to think that there are other people, who are adults today and who will think back on when they were little boys or little girls, who were being physically, mentally, sexually or any other way hurt or mistreated, or not being dealt with kindly. That is an awful thing. It is robbery of the worst type. It is the robbery of your youth, a thing that nobody can give you back.

I do not stand here today criticising the Minister or saying that he did anything wrong; I do not. What I am saying is that he inherited this problem and his issue on this is how he reacts to the problem. I feel that the Government has been brought kicking, dragging and scraping along with this. The advocates and abuse sufferers themselves, their families and the people who have helped them tried to seek redress. When I say “redress” I am not talking about anything to do with money or anything like that; what I am talking about is that these human beings would feel that the State recognises, “we were hurt, we were harmed”. Their childhoods were robbed from them. That is the big concern they have. Deputy Mattie McGrath and the others in the Rural Independent Group feel strongly about this because each one of us, in our political lives, has come across survivors of the abuse. It is so upsetting. I have heard other people speak far better than I speak this evening, and give their account of what they have come across. Other people are able to put the words together better than I can. We are so sorry for the people who are not here today, people who have gone on to their eternal reward. They will never get their youth back again. All everyone must try to do is try to make a young person’s life happy and joyful but we cannot do that for these people. What we have to do, politically, is do our best. We have to try to let them see that the politicians from all sides care, and we are all sorry and disappointed for what happened to them.

It is important to say, and survivors would have to agree with this, that there were people in the institutions of the State who were not like this. There were nice people in the clergy and in different institutions, who were kind. They did not want to hurt or mistreat anybody, and they never did. It is like everything; we have to be careful. Of course, there were horrible people who did vile things. There is the issue of people being out in the community and being hurt in the community. That was an awful thing to happen. People were entrusted to take care of a child and bring him or her into their home. There is no problem in the world with the work if a person was what I call “helping”. That was great but there is a great difference between helping and being treated like a slave. There is a great difference between being kept busy and being treated cruelly and between being part of the family and being shunned from the family; in other words, being with a family but not being with them. That is an awful thing to do to any child because a child is such an innocent, open page, with a pure mind and pure body, and a child will soak up everything. If they are treated kindly they will soak that up and enjoy their childhood. That is not what happened, in many cases. We also have to be mindful not to condemn all the institutions of the State, not to condemn all the clergy or all the priests and nuns because they were not all like that. To say that they were, would be wrong. There were kind people. I am so sorry that the survivors of this abuse did not meet those people. I am so sorry that what happened to them, happened to them. However, politically our job now is to try to do the right thing for the survivors, and let them see in what I call their “getting older years” that the politicians of today, from all sides of the House are there to stand up for them, to fight for them and to look them in the eyes meaningfully and say, “We are so sorry that the State let you down, we are so sorry that you were hurt while you were in care and we are so sorry that such a thing could happen in the Ireland that was there before”.

We have to remember that to this day probably awful things are happening to children. We should always do everything that we humanly can to make sure that type of abuse, or any type of abuse, of our lovely little boys and girls, will never happen again, or be allowed to happen, on our watch, or on anybody else’s watch in the future.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will respond to the amendments first and then speak to some of the wider points. The Bill as it currently stands provides for a review of the operation of the scheme under section 42. The intention is that two reviews will be conducted on the scheme. The first is an interim one that will commence two years after the second anniversary of the establishment day, and the other will be commenced after the completion of the scheme. Section 12 also provides that the chief deciding officer shall prepare an annual report on the performance of his or her function and that each annual report will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Section 42 sets out a list of matters that should be considered as part of these reviews and it allows for the Minister to specify any additional matter. I consider that these matters are appropriate to the purpose of this section, which is to allow for a comprehensive review of the scheme as enacted. It is for this reason that I am not in a position to accept amendment No. 2 or amendment No. 62 as both amendments propose matters which represent a review of the parameters of the scheme and a broadening of the eligibility beyond what has been agreed by the Government and what is being provided for within this Bill. This is not a function of the legislation and it would require distinct Government approval.

However, I have given consideration to the matters raised on Committee Stage in regard to the manner in which this review was published and the timescales for commencement. As outlined on Committee Stage, I did not think it was proportionate or feasible to commence a review of the scheme six months after its establishment, as proposed in amendment No. 2. However, I was of the view that proposals brought forward on Committee Stage and today by way of amendments Nos. 59 and 60 from Deputies Ward and Funchion are reasonable. These amendments propose that reviews should be commenced not later than six months after the second anniversary of the scheme and the cessation date. Therefore, I am proposing amendment No. 58, which provides that the first or interim review of the operation of the scheme should be commenced as soon as possible but no later than six months after the second anniversary of the establishment date for the scheme, and that the review on completion of the scheme should be commenced as soon as possible but not later than six months after the cessation date for the scheme.

I am also proposing amendment No. 61, which explicitly states that where a review is completed, a report will be prepared and submitted to the Minister, and that the Minister shall cause this report to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. It was always the intention that this would be the case. On Committee Stage, Deputy Sherlock pointed out that this was not explicit, and the amendment now makes the matter explicit.

As I have acknowledged in previous proceedings in regard to this Bill, I am acutely aware that no one scheme can provide a response to the full range of individual experiences, pain and suffering suffered by survivors as a result of the legacy of these institutions. The State is proposing a scheme where applicants will not be required to demonstrate or bring forward evidence in regard to their experience, or enter into an adversarial individual assessment process. This learns from the experience of previous redress schemes.

The general payment approach recognises time spent in the institutions but also the harsh conditions, the emotional abuse and all other forms of mistreatment, stigma and trauma experienced in the institutions. The increase in payments, based on time spent, also recognises the impact of the longer stays in these harsh institutional settings.

I have said before that the payments scheme is one element of the range of responses by the State to survivors and former residents. This range of responses includes counselling services for all survivors and former residents, the very significant information and tracing Act that was launched in 2021, a service which provides guaranteed access to birth certificates as well as early life information, the establishment of a national centre for research and remembrance, the support for local memorial initiatives, the appointment of a special advocate, a children's fund to provide supports for children who are currently experiencing disadvantage, and the significant work to advance the excavation, exhumation and identification of the remains of infants in the Tuam burial site.

I know from my engagement with survivors that redress comes in many forms and means different things for different people. For many people who went through these institutions, a key desire was to have access to their information and, as we know, that is now provided within the birth information and tracing legislation. Over 6,500 people have sought information through that scheme and, already, just short of 1,500 people have received access to their information, some of them for the very first time.

The Government has agreed a payments scheme which, as I said, has an estimated value of €800 million. It will cover an estimated 34,000 former residents and survivors, recognising the huge impact and the huge scale of impacts that these institutions had across the State over many decades. This is far beyond what was recommended in the commission's report. It is far beyond even what the interdepartmental group proposed to Government. This scheme stands alongside the other elements of the action plan, the information and tracing legislation, the legislation to allow for the exhumation at Tuam and the provision of a records and memorial centre. It stands as part of an overall response that the State is making in seeking to make amends to survivors of these institutions, although I have always said we will never be able to do enough.

Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was incredible and somewhat excruciating to watch the Minister speak for almost seven minutes and not reference the main concerns that were raised in the Chamber, particularly the concerns raised by Deputies Boyd Barrett and Connolly. The Minister is right to highlight that this is one aspect of what has been going on in regard to mother and baby homes. For the past three years on the children committee, chaired by Deputy Funchion, we have been working on the birth information and tracing legislation and the burials Bill. The birth information and tracing legislation was announced with such fanfare in regard to people getting their information, yet it is a basic entitlement that everybody else in the country already had, so it does not deserve any kind of a medal or anything like that. People are actually waiting far longer than was promised for their information and they are still getting in touch with all of us to say they have not got their information yet, so there is no kudos for that.

With regard to the burials Bill, we have a situation where the Minister has legislated to just intervene at Tuam. That is very welcome and there needs to be intervention there, but we know there are mass unmarked graves all over the country, and the Minister has legislated to not intervene there. Here we go again - the bare minimum, the exclusion of people and hierarchy. It is the same thing again. I am glad the Minister highlighted it because it is important to give context to that. It is a disgrace.

I want to re-emphasise the need to, at the very least, give an explanation as to why the Minister has excluded people who spent less than six months in an institution. The Department carried out the OAK report. The findings of that report stated that the highest thing that survivors reported they wanted the redress to be based on was what Deputy Boyd Barrett spoke about, namely, separation of mother and child and forced family separation. That was the main finding of the report. The Department ignored that and went much further down the list of things in the feedback, and went with time spent in institutions. Can the Minister outline to the Chamber and to the people in the Visitors Gallery how on earth the Department came to that conclusion? We still do not know. It was printed in the Irish Examineryesterday that a freedom of information request was submitted to the Department for it to explain how that conclusion was come to. What did they get back? That it was in the national interest for the Department not to say how it came to do that because it could upset a “vulnerable group” of people. It is basically saying “We are not going to tell you why you have been shafted because it might upset you.”

The general public do not accept this treatment of survivors any more. It has gone on for far too long. I do not think the Minister quite realises how much people are against this. I agree with Deputy Sherlock that we will not see the end of this and that cases will be taken in court if the Minister does not change tack.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be fair, one could have anticipated the Minister's response because it is consistent with the response on Committee Stage. I was hopeful there would be some movement by the Minister in respect of what we were seeking to do in amendment No. 2. I share the views of Deputy Cairns in respect of the culture that seemingly exists within the Department in respect of the freedom of information request that was put in by Elaine Loughlin and Conall Ó Fátharta, as reported in yesterday's Irish Examiner, which reported: "Premature release of policy deliberations into the public domain carries significant risk to policy decision-making processes, particularly in areas that are highly contentious."

Do not infantilise people who have a voice themselves. Do not referred to them as a "vulnerable group". These are people who are well able to stand up for themselves. Do not condescend to them. Do not patronise them. Meet them as equals. We know that the scheme is flawed because we know there are so many who are excluded because of this legislation.

We know that quite a number of people will not have access to healthcare. All we are seeking, in what we feel is a very reasonable way, is that the Minister shift a little bit towards the position the Opposition is promulgating.

Within the very limited means we have, we want to at least keep on the agenda the very people we are seeking to represent, namely, those who were boarded out, people who were born in mother and baby homes, and the people who are in birth to six months age category. I have a daughter at home who is six months old. Any of us who have children see the importance of the first six months in any child's life and the importance of the interaction between the parent and child. For the life of me, I do not see how, logically, we can exclude people in that category. The logic of the position being taken by the Minister is down to finance and how much money will be spent on the scheme. So many people are being excluded, which is not fair. On that basis, we will press the amendment and seek to vote on it.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is noteworthy that the Minister is sitting on his own and there is not a single other Minister or backbencher beside him. That in itself tells a story about the Bill.

In his seven-minute contribution the Minister outlined that no scheme will cover everything. The point about this scheme is that we are meant to have learned from the past. I spoke about the situation in 2012. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae captured it when he said that we were dragged screaming to it. None of this was done proactively by any Government, not just the current one. It was the work of Catherine Corless, the people in the Gallery, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, the Clann Project on the ground and many others. They repeatedly educated us, backed us up and supported us, as they did in respect of the Government. They did not discriminate like the Minister's scheme does. The scheme is discriminatory, divisive and faulty. We will have learned nothing if we go ahead with it. At a most basic estimate, the Minister is excluding 40% of the people affected.

The Minister had no answer to the question asked by Deputy Cairns regarding the basis on which he made the decision. Is he still holding to the tabula rasaapproach and saying that children do not matter? Is it the case that Deputy Sherlock, who has minded his child for the past six months, has utterly wasted his time because it did not make a difference? What the Minister is saying is that he could have simply left the child because it did not make a difference. I do not think he means that, but that is what he is saying. He did say it in the past, but I am sure he has changed his mind. This is a scheme that cannot go ahead.

Where are the religious orders? Part of our review and the points set out is that we look to see where are the other organisations. The Minister sent a letter or negotiated with them back in January 2021. What happened? What have the religious organisations said? What is the overall value of having an inclusive scheme and what needs to be contributed by the religious orders?

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I mentioned the Tuam group earlier, but we also have with us James Sugrue and Peter Mulryan, two of the boarded-out children. They want the point to be made that they were given a commitment by the Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, about their own cases and that they should not be forgotten. The difficulty we have had with the Government is that members say one thing when they meet survivors but when it comes down to brass tacks, we see a totally different approach.

I am struggling for words because we have had so many debates on the mother and baby institutions and so many committee meetings, including through Covid, when we had to figure out how we could bring people up to Dublin so that we could hear directly from them. We overcame all the difficulties and, as a committee, we worked very well and very hard together on a cross-party basis. That does not happen very often. Yet, here we are and the scheme still excludes so many people.

I agree with the other speakers that we need to know why people who were born in the institutions or spent less than six months in them are being left out. With all due respect, the reason the Minister does not want to answer that is that it is a cost-saving measure. I believe that if the Minister was in one of the seats over here, he would not fundamentally agree with this scheme.

I also want to briefly mention the religious institutions and the pharmaceutical companies because they must be pursued. I said on Second Stage that we should seek to pursue them through the courts because they must pay their fair share as well.

I know I am running out of time but I beg the Acting Chair to indulge me for 30 seconds. Before Christmas, when a health Bill was due to be guillotined, the debate was adjourned with a view to coming back to it after Christmas. That was the first time in the seven years I have been in this House that the right decision was made on such a matter. The same can be done with this Bill. We could adjourn the debate and, without going back to the drawing board, devise a scheme that will include everybody and ensure that all those who spent even a few minutes in an institution are included in it. Deputy Boyd Barrett summed up the entire situation in his contribution. I commend him on that.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies Funchion, Sherlock, Cairns and others for their comments and contributions. For clarity, I want to respond briefly to something Deputy Michael Healy-Rae said. Of course, there were many decent people in the church and State, but there was a system that was official, orchestrated and systematic. It was approved and endorsed at the highest level of the State for most of its history and at the highest level of the church. Yes, there may have been individuals who were appalled, tried to do their best and so on, but this was the system of the State and the church. Every single mother and child who had their identity taken from them, every child who was torn out of his or her mother's arms and every mother who had a child torn out of her arms is a victim of abuse by church and State. There is an idea that we can exclude them. Of course, beyond that, some people suffered much worse, but it had nothing to do with an arbitrary date of six months. It often had something to do with being boarded out or being discriminated against on the grounds of colour or class, but it had nothing to do with arbitrary dates of a week, a month, six months or whatever. There is no basis for these exclusions, including the exclusion of institutions for the failure to acknowledge particular suffering, or for arbitrary dates. It is shocking that the Minister will still not respond to that central point. There is no justification for it.

I did psychology in university as one of my subjects. There are many schools of psychology, but there is not one serious school of psychology that believes there is a blank slate for the first six months and that things that happen to a person from day one do not impact on a lifelong basis. If a person is traumatised and something is done wrong to him or her, such as mothers and children being separated at that age, it leaves a lifelong imprint on the person. The person has been wronged. The State must acknowledge that but it is failing to do so. The Minister has not even shown the decency of explaining to the survivors how he came to this decision. Perhaps it is because there is no explanation. It is an accountant's decision and that is compounding the abuse, suffering and injustice of so many.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. As I said previously, I fully understand there are survivors, including those joining us today, who are not happy with the determinations made regarding the ambit of this scheme.

The Government has made the point that during the engagement we had, when we spoke to survivors, which was referenced by Deputies, and when they gave their accounts of what they wanted to see in terms of the State's response, as I said previously, each person's account and recognition of what they wanted to see the State do was different. Many of them, especially those who spent shorter times in these institutions, placed their focus on the issue of information and the fact that they were denied their information for such a long period. In response to that, the State passed the Birth Information and Tracing Act. Deputy Cairns is correct. We are not seeking to clap ourselves on the back for the passage of that legislation. It should have been passed many years ago. However, it is in operation now and is providing people with their information.

We believe that designing a scheme that does not require people to come forward or to give evidence of the abuse they suffered, but is designed on the basis of the length of time they spent in a particular institution - Deputy Boyd Barrett criticised the Bill for the list of times provided for in it - is the way to provide a scheme that will give people access to redress. It does not require them to provide information and does not require the cross-examination we have seen in previous redress schemes.

Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is completely disingenuous to give that justification for excluding people who spent less than six months in institutions from the scheme. Some people highlighted time spent in institutions as a matter to look into in the context of redress. It is completely disingenuous. The Minister is completely and blatantly ignoring all the concerns that have been raised in the House, and all the concerns raised with Deputies by the general public, by acting as if he believes this is the right thing to do. We all know that there is no explanation for it and that it is completely indefensible. That is why the Minister consistently avoids answering the question, why there is nobody sitting with the Minister, and why nobody on the Government side ever attends debates on this matter. It is because this is completely inexcusable. The Minister commissioned a report. Its findings were that redress should be based on forced family separation. He ignored that, went down the list and chose this option. His reply is disingenuous.

As it is the last word on this report, and all the other amendments we will speak to are technicalities and do not address the bigger and broader picture, I will say that I genuinely thought, when this six-month criterion was put in, that it was a red herring to distract all of us from the fact that the overall redress scheme offers such a low bar for payments. I thought this six-month requirement would definitely be scrapped-----

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So did I.

Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and that we would all be talking today about the fact that somebody might get €3,000 or €5,000 for something like being separated from their parent or child at birth, or that people might get that amount for being incarcerated, for forced labour, for illegal adoptions and all the horrors, including illegal vaccine trials on children. People might get €3,000 or €5,000 for that. I said it before and I will say it again - you would get more if you fell over a pavement. The entire thing is an absolute disgrace. I hope that is on the record today.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I proposed this amendment and there are five seconds left in the slot.

Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Very briefly.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The idea that people cannot institute civil proceedings if they receive a payment is something that will be revisited in law. This will come back to haunt us. There is no doubt about it.

Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under Standing Order 83(3)(b) I propose that the vote be taken by other than electronic means.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 40, 41, 45 to 47, inclusive, 51 to 55, inclusive, 64 and 66 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, to delete lines 2 to 7 and substitute the following:

“ “applicant” means—

(a) subject toparagraph (b), a person who makes an application in accordance with section 19, or

(b) in the case of an application to whichsection 36or 37(2) applies, or proceeded with undersection 38, the person on whose behalf or for the benefit of whose estate the application is made;”.

The amendments in this grouping relate to the definition of "applicant" and the treatment of applications which are made on behalf of relevant persons where the relevant person is incapacitated or deceased. The published Bill defined an applicant as "a person who makes an application in accordance with section 14, or a person on whose behalf or for the benefit of whose estate such an application is, in accordance with this Act, made, and a reference in this Act to an applicant shall, where the context so requires, include a reference to a person who makes an application in accordance with section 31 or 32 or who proceeds under section 33 with an application". Therefore, the term "applicant" could mean the relevant person, that is, the person who spent time in an institution, or a person acting on behalf of such a relevant person. Despite the definition providing that a reference to an applicant could be so construed, it was still creating some confusion in respect of parts of the Bill where the chief deciding officer required information in respect of both the relevant person and the person acting on behalf of the relevant person. There were also difficulties in respect of section 14(4)(b) and section 14(4)(c) where the chief deciding officer is required to establish an applicant is a relevant person and, if so, make calculations in accordance with section 19. The definition is, therefore, being stripped back in the interests of legal clarity and under the proposed new definition in the amendment, an applicant is solely the relevant person.

On Committee Stage I flagged that amendments would be tabled on Report Stage to provide further clarity on the making of applications on behalf of a relevant person and this is provided for in amendment No. 51. With the assisted decision making (capacity) legislation now successfully enacted, these provisions can be updated to take full account of that legislation. That is what this amendment does. It also ensures we are fully catering for arrangements that might be in place in respect of persons who lack capacity both in Ireland and abroad. Subsection (a) of the provision provides for applications on behalf of a relevant person to be made by "a person who is authorised by or under an enactment or an order of a court to make such an application". Subsection (b) provides for an application "where the relevant person is ordinarily resident in a place outside the State" to be made by "a person who is authorised, under the law of the place, to act on behalf of the relevant person".

Amendment No. 55 proposes the inclusion of a new section 34 to support sections 31 to 33, inclusive, and also as a consequence of the proposed amendment to the definition of "applicant" in section 2. This provides for instances where an application is made under section 31 on behalf of a relevant person who lacks capacity; section 32 where the relevant person is deceased; or section 33 where the relevant person dies while the application is being processed. In those situations, the chief deciding officer should satisfy him or herself that the person is authorised to make an application under these sections. The person making the application should furnish the CDO with any "contact details, personal data and information" required in order for the CDO to be satisfied that the person is duly authorised. When it has been established to the satisfaction of the CDO that the person making the application is duly authorised to do so, for the purposes of this application, that person will become the proxy applicant. The CDO may, therefore, deal with this person as though he or she were the applicant and the powers and duty under this Act shall be exercisable or carried out by this person. This proposed arrangement is important as the proxy applicant in this case will be engaging with the scheme on behalf of the relevant person and making all decisions in respect of that application, including the significant decision of whether or not to accept an offer from the scheme.

Amendment No. 5 provides for a definition for the term "enactment" as referred to in the revised section 31. Amendments Nos. 40, 41, 45 to 47, inclusive, 52 to 54, inclusive, 64 and 66 are all technical and consequential in nature. They all provide for amendments to other sections to take account of the changes to the definition of an "applicant" and the inclusion of the new section proposed by amendment No. 55. Previously in these sections, the word applicant was used to take account of the relevant person or a person acting on behalf of a relevant person. It is now necessary to specify applicant; a person who is making an application on behalf of a relevant person in accordance with section 31; or a personal representative who is making an application under sections 32 or 33.

Amendment No. 54 provides for the deletion of subparagraph 3 in section 33. However, the provisions of that subparagraph are now being dealt with in the proposed new section arising from amendment No. 55.

Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 4 and 15 to 19, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

“ “dissolution day” means the day appointed under section 13;”.

On Committee Stage I outlined my intention to bring forward amendments to provide for the office to be formally dissolved and for any residual functions of the chief deciding officer to be transferred to the Minister. New sections covered by amendments Nos. 15 to 19, inclusive, provide for the dissolution of the office of the chief deciding officer following the cessation of the scheme. These new sections partly reflect comparable dissolution provisions included in the Institutional Burials Act 2022. They are important to ensure clarity regarding the wind-up of the office, the smooth management of residual issues and the long-term management of records.

Amendment No. 15 provides the Minister with the authority to appoint a day on which the office of the chief deciding officer will cease to exist, with this day not being than the cessation date for the scheme, as already provided for in the Bill. The inclusion of this section necessitates a definition of "dissolution date" to be provided in section 2 and this is done through amendment No. 4.

Amendment No. 16 allows for functions that were previously assigned to the chief deciding officer to be performed by the Minister following the dissolution of the office.

Amendment No. 17 provides that any legal proceedings in train to which the chief deciding officer is a party may continue in the name of the Minister and the office may still be dissolved. Reference to the chief deciding officer shall henceforth be construed as references to the Minister. Where relevant, anything that has commenced but is not completed prior to dissolution day shall be completed on or after the dissolution day by the Minister. This is provided for in amendment No. 18.

Importantly, amendment No. 19 provides that records in the possession of the chief deciding officer will be deposited with the Minister for the purposes of performing any residual functions. The records will be considered to be departmental records within the meaning of the National Archives Act 1986 and the general data protection directive and all relevant protocols will apply.

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not support this group of amendments and I have a number of questions about it. The Minister stated that he outlined his intention on Committee Stage. I am open to correction but I do not remember that there was talk of a dissolution day and the scheme being dissolved. It is not a scheme that will last forever. As flawed as the scheme is, I am not comfortable that we are talking about dissolution of an office and the transfer of powers to the Minister of the day, especially if there are any outstanding claims or legal proceedings.

We often look for reviews in legislation.

If I remember correctly, on Committee Stage, one thing we agreed on was that there would be a review. Would it not be more appropriate at that point to look at how the institution or agency would be dissolved and the handling of that? I am very uncomfortable with the fact that we are talking about dissolving the agency before it is even up and running. It gives too much power to the Minister and the Department, by default, regarding deadlines. I find it difficult to talk about the technicalities of the scheme because I am fundamentally against it due to everything we have just discussed on the previous amendment. I do not support this and it should not be included in the Bill. If there needs to be, for technical or legal reasons that someone may point out to me in respect of dissolution, can it not be done when we review the legislation? Are we not saying that we will review it at a two-year stage? I will not support these amendments for that reason.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I raised the issue of the role of chief deciding officer on Committee Stage. There is still no clarity as to the status of that role. Will it be a Civil Service role? Will it be subject to the Public Appointments Service process? What grade will the appointed person be? Is there an equivalent grade within the Civil Service in respect of that role? What role will public representatives have? I draw similarities between when I make representations to the HSE or the Department of Social Protection. There are any number of officers with whom I deal with depending on the issue and there is a hierarchy there. First, we need to be able to make representations, on behalf of our constituents, to the deciding officer or a designated person. Second, what is the infrastructure around that person? What we do not want is a situation in which we are seeking to advocate on behalf of people in a reasonable fashion but we are disbarred from doing so.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In response to Deputy Funchion’s question, the establishment and duration of the scheme is set out under sections 5 and 6. On the duration of the scheme, it states that, subject to subsection (2), the scheme shall cease to operate on the following date, in the Act referred to as the "cessation date", which will either be the date that is the fifth anniversary of the establishment day, or such date that the Minister may, by order, specify that is earlier than that date. There is provision for a cessation date for the scheme to close and, after such time as the scheme closes, there would be a dissolution of the office that was designed to provide the scheme.

In response to Deputy Sherlock, there are several sections dealing with the establishment of the role of chief deciding officer. The method of appointment is set out in section 8. The chief deciding officer will be a member of the Civil Service. It is important to note that the role will be independent in terms of the functions, which are clearly set out in the legislation. Section 9(3) states, "The Chief Deciding Officer shall be independent in the performance of the functions conferred upon him or her by or under this Act." While the person will be a member of the Civil Service, there is a clear, legislative protection of the independence of the functions under this Act. An office will be established under the chief deciding officer that will undertake the various administrative roles necessary to implement a scheme of this scale.

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are saying the scheme will wrap up within five years or, potentially, earlier. Is that correct? Can I get clarity on that?

Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister will answer during his response.

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does not make sense that we would set a date in the legislation as to when it will wrap up, yet we are supposed to do a review. If we do a review two years in, it will nearly be at the five-year stage by the time the review is done, the way things operate in this place. I find it difficult to support any of these amendments going forward given the nature of the debate on the previous amendment. When we had an opportunity to do the right thing, unfortunately, that amendment was not accepted. I will call a vote on this amendment.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I need to know, in simple terms, whether I can make representations on behalf of my constituents who present to me regarding their interactions with the office that is to be set up?

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand Deputy Funchion’s concerns, but the legislation clearly sets out that after five years, the scheme will cease and that is it. The issue is if we are interested in having a meaningful review, the review could come up with a recommendation that the scheme should go on for longer. I am fundamentally opposed to the Bill in the manner it is laid out. I am now tweaking legislation that I am unhappy with. I am simply asking questions in relation to it. We are pre-empting the outcome of the independent review. In amendment No. 2, which we lost, we were setting out important criteria that would allow the scheme to be extended. I am fundamentally against the five-year limit. Another scheme - I think it was for the Magdalen laundries - was open for longer. Precedents have been set. We could also consider leaving the scheme open-ended. No justification has been given for the five-year duration. We are now pre-empting the review and the review cannot extend the duration of the scheme.

The role of chief deciding officer is supposed to be independent. I have a difficulty with that based on my experience of Caranua and comments made publicly by the former director and so on. The office will be within the Minister's Department. The chief deciding officer will make the decision within the Department. The appeal will be heard by a panel of individuals, one of whom can sit. When they make their judgement, that decision goes back to the chief deciding officer who conveys the decision, which is very unusual. When a decision of the Circuit Court is appealed to the High Court, the High Court gives the judgment. A person does not have to go back to the Circuit Court to get the judge to give the decision of the High Court. Whereas in this case, extraordinary power is given to the deciding officer who is then the conveyor of the outcome of the appeal process.

Another section concerns me. I am usually good at identifying them but I am very tired now. There is a section that allows the chief deciding officer to request more information. The deciding officer can request a sworn affidavit from the person if he or she is unhappy with the information provided. The deciding officer can also seek information from relevant institutions or entities that have information. I could be wrong, but when I read that, I saw no provision-----

Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind the Deputy that we were on the second round.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not know that. An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach will have to guide us in that regard. Seven minutes were displayed on the clock.

Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Seven minutes were on the clock but we were on the second round of two minutes each.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, and I would be the first to keep the rules, but I am simply going by what is on the clock.

Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If you could finish.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not helpful. We need to know when we start off. I constantly make mistakes in the Chair but-----

Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We had the first run-through of seven minutes-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that.

Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and when the Minister responded, we were on the second-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand each person on the amendment can have a seven-minute contribution, uninterrupted.

Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am informed you are entitled to seven minutes. It is no surprise that you know the rules better.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I get confused myself; I am the first to put my hands up. I was referring to the chief deciding officer and the documents. If he or she requests further documents to help making a decision, there is no provision in the Bill for those documents to be shared with the person coming forward, the applicant.

Perhaps the Minister could point out in which section can be found an obligation on the chief deciding officer or appeal officer to provide whatever information he or she has to the applicant in the interests of openness and accountability so the applicant knows how the decision was reached and what it was based on. That would be very helpful.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Regarding Deputy Funchion's point, it was always understood even when I announced the pre-legislative process that the scheme would run for a limited period and would have a five-year duration. That is provided for within the legislation.

Regarding Deputy Sherlock's question on engagements by elected representatives, specific representations from Deputies or Senators will be dealt with in the context of the scheme. Members will be able to make representations to the office. Issues to do with privacy must be taken into account.

Regarding Deputy Connolly's question, it is important to say legislative protection of the independence of the office is set out. There is a process for an appeal against a decision of the chief deciding officer that goes to the independent panel referred to by the Deputy. There is the final possibility of appeal to the High Court on a point of law.

In terms of information shared, section 17(4) addresses some of that. A full account of the decision will be provided in a letter in accordance with best practice and natural justice so there is a provision there. I understand section 17(4) addresses the provision of the information on which the chief deciding officer makes the determination.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have it marked it here and what I have underlined is "may". The chief deciding officer may share with the applicant a copy of information assessed. The word "may" is worrying. Who is going to guide the officer if he or she decides not to share the information? A decision was made not to share how the Minister came to the decision that every child under six months should be excluded because it would seem subject to further clarification from him that he did it for the good of people. He has not shared the basis of that decision. If we continue with that patronising patriarchal approach, whoever is the deciding officer can decide not to share the information because he or she thinks it is not really in the interest of the survivor or applicant and it is a case of "we know best". The word "may" is way too vague.

Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I now proceed to put the question.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do we not get an answer?

Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister has contributed three times on the amendment. We are a little out of order.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps he might come back on another amendment.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps he might come back on another amendment.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 6, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

“ “enactment” has the same meaning as it has in the Interpretation Act 2005;”.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 10 and 42 are related and may be discussed together.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 7, line 26, to delete “the institution.”.

Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 10, 42 and 45 are all technical amendments to take account of presentation issues or errors which were identified following the publication of the Bill or to take account of cross-referencing amendments necessary as a consequence of other amendments to the Bill. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 address an error in the layout of the existing section 22. The words "the institution" in paragraph (b) of that subsection should be on a separate line after that paragraph as they are relevant to both paragraphs (a) and (b).

Amendments Nos. 10 and 42 provide for cross-referencing amendments to reflect revised section numbers.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 7, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:

“the institution.”.

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 9, to delete lines 19 to 21 and substitute the following:

“(5) The Chief Operating Officer may appoint suitably qualified staff as he or she may determine to the staff of the Office of the Chief Deciding Officer to assist in the performance of his or her duties.”.

The office of the chief deciding officer must be independent and, as such, the recruitment of staff to the office must be independent and that is the aim of the amendment.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support the amendment. That the role be as independent as possible has been called for by the joint committee which is cross-party. It is set out in the committee's recommendations of which there are 27. It stated: "The independence of the Chief Deciding Officer will be critical to this and should be shored up as much as possible." Similar points were made in a slightly different way by various entities. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission made points about the need for proper training for the chief deciding officer as well as for the appeals officers and that they would have training in human rights and so on in relation to hearing appeals. Therefore I support the amendment.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not in a position to accept the amendment. We had some discussion of this on Committee Stage. The Bill provides for the establishment of the office of the chief deciding officer of the mother and baby institution payment scheme within my Department. That office will be overseen by a chief deciding officer who will perform the functions set out under section 9 of the Bill.

In reference to Deputy Connolly's point, section 9 provides that the chief deciding officer will be independent in the performance of these functions. That independence is set out clearly in the legislation. The chief deciding officer will be assigned staff to support the administration of the scheme. The responsibility for this function lies with the Minister.

Work in regard to the recruitment of the staff for the executive office is already under way as it is necessary in order to ensure that the necessary resources are in place and staff are fully trained prior to the launch of the scheme. As discussed, the scheme is intended to be non-adversarial in nature and will not require the applicants to bring forward evidence of abuse suffered. All staff involved in administering the scheme will be trained in trauma-informed approaches and the relevant communication processes. A training-needs analysis of members of this office has already been completed. It identified a range of necessary training modules that staff working in this office will need including issues to do with the equality delivery, in terms of call handling and also in terms of trauma-informed care, for which there will be an explicit module. There will also be an explicit module looking at the historical and cultural background to mother and baby and county home institutions. This range of training is being prepared for the staff who will work in the chief deciding officer's office.

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My whole difficulty with this relates to "assigned staff". Where are those staff going to come from? It is somewhat similar to what Deputy Sherlock spoke about earlier. I mean no disrespect to them but there may be existing staff in another role in the Civil Service who will be moved over to this. If we want them to be fully independent the chief deciding officer should be able to advertise for staff and decide what type of staff is needed for that role.

It should be solely with that office. It should not be assigned staff from the Department. That is the Department's way of being in and out at the same time. Deputy Connolly made several references to Caranua and every time she said it I could not believe I had forgotten to speak about it. People's experience with that institution was just horrific. The stories we could tell about people's interactions. There is a fear that this is going to be similar. This would be better for everybody. It would be better for both the Minister and the Department if this office was totally independent and they had no role whatsoever in assigning staff. It should be the chief deciding officer. That is going to end up being a very frustrating role if that person is asked to do something and then their hands are tied. We need that to be totally independent.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have the same reservations as Deputy Funchion. The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. Do we ever learn from our mistakes? The Caranua experience was an unmitigated disaster. I do not think the Minister was involved in setting that up - he was not even here at the time - but it was a disaster. Surely we should learn but we are going back to it. In the last couple of days, the Mail on Sunday broke the story about the nursing homes, the charges and the fees. Several Attorneys General, several Cabinets and several different people were being briefed and it was all about who said what, when and where. It all boils down to one thing, an chéad rud mór, which is minding the system, protecting the system and keeping the system intact, whatever about the people.

I too welcome the people in the Gallery, although some of them may be gone. Horrific things happened in the mother and baby homes and with the delays. I will not say this legislation is rushed because there has been enough talk about it but it is half-baked and not fit for purpose and should be taken away. Why would we not have staff who are independent? The same kind of thing happened with Tusla. Staff moved over from the HSE. Can we not go out and get independent staff and expertise that would be coming with a fresh mind and an open mind to deal with this objectively? No. The Department, like Big Brother, has to have its tentacles in everything and its engagement and overall management. I have seen it too many times. I saw it one time when I was on the Irish Council for Social Housing - I might be straying a bit - and a nomination came up for a place on the board of Pobal. There was an excellent lady and sister from Limerick and we said we would love to get inside Pobal to see what it is like. The meeting had to be adjourned in a panic in case any of us might get it and they came back after lunch and said it had to be a representative of the Minister. That makes an ass of any kind of independence or objectivity.

I am very disappointed about what has happened in here as well. It is a matter of the State having done wrong but it has perpetrated the wrong now for ever more. It is trying to keep the lid on it but the lid is going to be blown straight off it in many areas across the State because people are thankfully fed up of it and tired of it. The system is going to crack. We have whistleblowers in many areas and I salute the vast majority of them. They are brave people. This is not fit for purpose. There is no objectivity and no independence from the Minister and the Department. We had the awful experience of Caranua and the unfortunate people who were dealt with there. They had been traumatised and went there for the trauma. Where is our humanity and compassion? Where is our self-worth and the value of people and their well-being? We talk all the time on different committees about mental health and well-being and valuing people's lives and yet here we are. The Government wants to keep them in this time capsule and keep them quiet about anything else, so they might go away. They will not go away. They are not going anywhere and we will not rest either until this is corrected.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just want to support Deputy Funchion's amendment. We have enough reason to worry given the Government has set its face against the appeals of survivors and people in this House to not exclude people. It has not provided an explanation for that because we all know the explanation, it would appear, is about penny-pinching on real justice and redress. That is in line with the sort of other issues we have been talking about in the Dáil over the last few days where the State has done everything it can to cover itself against what it sees as financial exposure, regardless of the consequence for vulnerable people or people who have been wronged by the State. We have seen it tragically played out again with this legislation.

It is telling that we say there is going to be a deciding officer who is independent but the definition of independence in this particular role is somebody who is willing to disagree with the Government if necessary, who has staff and so on and would, if necessary, disagree with the Minister and take the Minister on. We are dealing with a group of people who have been wronged by the State, who have very considerable concerns and are deeply unhappy with the redress that has been established because it excludes and because it is so minimal. The very least you would expect is that the deciding officer would have the capacity to be a bit independent. Critical to that, he or she should at least have the opportunity to recruit some of his or her own people, people the deciding officer feels are experts or particularly suited to doing the jobs necessary. That is not a negative commentary on staff that might come from the Minister's Department because I am sure many of those are well-suited and well-qualified but the deciding officer, if he or she is independent, should have the right to decide what sort of staff resources he or she needs, including what kind of people and what kind of qualifications they might have. This clearly sets out that it is really the Minister who is going to decide on the officers and the staffing of the independent deciding officer's office. The two things do not add up. It is not independence if the Minister is making all the appointments. It is a reasonable amendment Deputy Funchion is putting forward but I suspect that, as the Minister has ignored the appeals on the bigger and more substantive issue, he is probably going to ignore these appeals too.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to speak to the importance of this. I am looking at the advisory paper to the interdepartmental group from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission independence and oversight. It states:

The UN Special Rapporteur has set out minimum requirements that a domestic reparation programme should fulfil, including that the programme be: “monitored through processes that include consultation with and the participation of survivors” ...

IHREC recommends that the Government establish both an independent redress body to administer the scheme and an oversight mechanism to review decisions of that body. It recommends that survivors and individuals with expertise in human rights and equality, transitional justice and alternative dispute resolution should be represented on the redress body and any oversight mechanism.

What is being repeated all the time in this report is the importance of trained people. On one level it is positive that there will be training but I hear the word "module" being used. It is not possible to get training in a module. You have to have people with expertise, background and experience who understand the complexity of trauma. If we are moving from a position where we are talking about children between zero and six months being a tabula rasa, we have a long way to go and a module is not going to sort that out. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties also points out the importance of an independent process with regard to appeals. That is the theme throughout all these papers. There is a requirement for a human-rights based approach to set out the principles and then the process functions with that overall thing.

That has not happened. I read out the basic principles from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, which asks for the most basic elements to be enshrined in the Bill in order that we and the people administering it would know what we have learned and what we want to achieve. That also has not happened.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is being proposed here is not similar to Caranua. The legal structures are different. It is really important that we put this on the record at the outset. The independence of the decision-making on each of these applications as they come in, which is the central role for the chief deciding officer, is protected in legislation.

The decisions of the chief deciding officer can be appealed to an independent appeals panel and those decisions can go to the High Court on a point of law. The protections that Deputy Connolly spoke about are built into the decision-making processes.

On staff appointments, which are essential in the context of the amendment before us, Deputy Funchion described the ability for all staff to be appointed independently. That is almost an entire State agency. That is a State agency model. I have spoken about this previously. During the debate on the Birth Information and Tracing Bill, we spoke about the amount of time it will take to establish. Maybe the Deputy thinks that should be done. However, we have all spoken about the need to act quickly to make sure survivors and former residents can actually avail of their redress. We know the amount of time it takes to create a new agency in this State. Even with the work done by the Minister of Justice, Deputy McEntee, and the Minister, Deputy Harris, acting in her stead in terms of the domestic violence agency, they are looking at an 18-month period. I believe in a process whereby we have an independent office in a Department, which can use the strengths of the Department in terms of HR and the ability to get people into relevant places in good time. Importantly, however, it must have legislative protection and the independence of the decision-making function is the best way to go.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Deputy Funchion accept the Minister's response?

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I come back in?

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy may make a final contribution.

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The chief deciding officer should be able to appoint his or her staff independently. The idea is that the chances of having to appeal decision with a genuinely independent staff in place will be reduced. I am not talking about setting up a whole new State agency, which is different from what we proposed on the birth information legislation. If I was appointed in the morning as an independent person and I said I needed to appoint five, six, seven or eight staff, there is no way that would take 18 months. I cannot understand how that can be used as an argument.

There might be many appeals, which I 100% support. Appeals are really important and they should be independent. I welcome that part of it. However, there will be less likelihood of appeals if we have a really decent, genuine, independent service that goes by what is right and by the regulations, and which is not necessarily kind of tainted in its view, for want of better words.

I honestly cannot understand what the issue is with this. If the person is supposed to be independent, let him or her appoint his or her own staff. That is one of the key things about being independent. I cannot understand it. Part of me is annoyed at myself for being annoyed because this whole legislation is so flawed. I forget her exact words, but Deputy Connolly spoke about trying to change something that is already so flawed. These are minor things. I really think the Minister can concede some of these points. I honestly do not see how there is any difficulty with somebody who is forced to be dependent appointing his or her own staff.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister cannot come back in now because he has spoken twice already. How stands the amendment?

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will press the amendment.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 9, line 26, to delete “section 20” and substitute “section 25,”.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are related and may be taken together.

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 9, line 35, after “campaign,” to insert “in Ireland and abroad,”.

We had a discussion on this in committee. If I am reading it correctly, the Minister's amendment No. 12 deals with the issue. If that is the case, I will be happy to withdraw amendment No. 11. I ask for clarity on that.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am bringing forward amendment No. 12 in response to amendment No. 11, which was also proposed on Committee Stage. It sought to specify that the chief deciding officer should hold the public information campaign to raise awareness of the scheme abroad as well as in Ireland. While it has always been the intention that the campaign would promote awareness outside of Ireland, the section is being amended so that intention is now explicitly stated. We are just raising it in a slightly different way from the amendment proposed by Deputy Funchion but it will achieve the same goal.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 9, line 36, to delete “relevant persons,” and substitute “relevant persons (including relevant persons residing outside the State),”.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are out of order.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 11, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “Dissolution day

13. The Minister shall by order appoint a day, being a day that is not earlier than the cessation date, to be the dissolution day for the purposes of this Act.”.

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This relates to the earlier discussion on the dissolution, which we do not support. I am just following that train of thought.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This refers back to an earlier amendment. I asked the Minister but he could not come back in a second time at that point. He might take the opportunity now to clarify the point that the deciding officer “may” share the documents with the applicant.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister to be brief as we have already discussed this with amendment No. 4.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The determination letter will provide applicants with detailed information about how a decision was arrived at. It will also let applicants know they may request a copy of this information, as some applicants may want that information and some may not. There is a separate process whereby an applicant can request their information by way of a subject access request. We did not want to establish a parallel system to this, particularly where people already have their records. Equally, records may not be available in every case despite searches and requests for information sources.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 11, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “Transfer of functions to relevant Minister

14. On the dissolution day, all functions that immediately before that day were vested in the Chief Deciding Officer shall stand transferred to the Minister.”.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 11, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “Liability for loss occurring before dissolution day

15. (1) A claim in respect of any loss or injury alleged to have been suffered by any person arising out of the performance, before the dissolution day, of a function of the Chief Deciding Officer transferred by section 14shall, on and after that day, lie against the Minister and not against the Chief Deciding Officer.

(2) Any legal proceedings pending immediately before the dissolution day to which the Chief Deciding Officer is a party, that relate to a function of the Chief Deciding Officer transferred by section 14, shall, on and after that day, be continued with the substitution in the proceedings of the Minister for the Chief Deciding Officer.

(3) Where, before the dissolution day, agreement has been reached between the parties concerned in settlement of a claim to which subsection (1)relates, the terms of which have not been implemented, or judgment in such a claim has been given in favour of a person but has not been enforced, the terms of the agreement or judgment, as the case may be, shall, on and after the dissolution day, in so far as they are enforceable against the Chief Deciding Officer, be enforceable against the Minister and not the Chief Deciding Officer.

(4) Any claim made or proper to be made by the Chief Deciding Officer in respect of any loss or injury arising from the act or default of any person before the dissolution day shall, on and after that day, where the claim relates to a function of the Chief Deciding Officer transferred by section 14, be regarded as having been made by or proper to be made by the Minister and may be pursued and sued for by the Minister as if the loss or injury had been suffered by the Minister.”.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 11, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “Provisions consequent upon transfer of functions

16. (1) Anything commenced and not completed before the dissolution day by or under the authority of the Chief Deciding Officer may, in so far as it relates to a function of the Chief Deciding Officer transferred to the Minister under section 14, be carried on or completed on or after the dissolution day by the Minister.

(2) Every instrument made under an enactment and every document (including any certificate) granted or made by the Chief Deciding Officer shall, if and in so far as it was operative immediately before the dissolution day, have effect on and after that day as if it had been granted or made by the Minister.

(3) References to the Chief Deciding Officer in any enactment or in the constitution of any company and relating to a function transferred to the Minister under section 14 shall, on and after the dissolution day, be construed as a reference to the Minister.”.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 11, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “Deposit with Minister of records in possession of Chief Deciding Officer

17. All records in the possession of the Chief Deciding Officer shall, on the dissolution day or as soon as possible after that day, be deposited with the Minister and, in so far as the records comprise personal data and special categories of personal data, those records—

(a) shall be Departmental records (within the meaning of section 2(2) of the , and

(b) may be processed, for so long as is necessary and proportionate, by or on behalf of the relevant Minister for the purposes of—

(i) the performance of functions transferred to that relevant Minister under section 14, and

(ii) the carrying on or completion, in accordance with section 16(1), of anything commenced and not completed as referred to in that provision.”.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 20 to 23, inclusive, are out of order.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 are related and may be taken together.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 12, to delete lines 14 to 18.

In committee proceedings, I outlined my intention to bring a Report Stage amendment to section 13(6). The published Bill contains a provision in regard to double recovery and the residential institutions redress scheme, RIRS. The provision specifically relates to the inclusion of one institution, St. Patrick's, Navan Road, Pelletstown, in the scheme as this institution was also included in the scheme of eligible institutions for the residential institutions redress scheme. In practice, section 28 of the residential institutions redress scheme of 2002 prohibits a person who receives an award from the RIRS from disclosing any information in regard to that award. Therefore, in recognition of the potential difficulties for affected applicants, the administrative complications and the risk of causing unintended hurt and upset for those applicants who were unsure whether the provisions might apply to them, Government approval was obtained on 15 November 2022 to amend the Bill by removing section 13(6). This is being done through amendment No. 24. Amendment No. 25 is a consequential amendment to section 14 following on from the removal of section 13(6).

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In regard to the previous redress scheme, which I referred to earlier, it was an offence if someone disclosed the award. Is that what the Minister is changing here in regard to an applicant who got an award under that system? The Minister is making specific provision to have St. Patrick's Institution included, which means somebody who may have gone to the residential redress board and got something but was prevented from disclosing it is now allowed to disclose it. Is that the case? The Minister might clarify those points.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under the original Bill, there was a provision in place which meant that if someone had been in St. Patrick's, Navan Road, Pelletstown, and had received a payment under the RIRS, he or she was disbarred from seeking a claim under this scheme. We are now removing that.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 13, line 28, to delete “subsection (8) ofsection 13” and substitute “section 18(7)”.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 26 and 63 are related and may be discussed together.

Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 14, to delete lines 19 to 22.

This amendment seeks to remove another exclusion based on spending a minimum amount of time in an institution. The section relates to people who make another application to the scheme in the unlikely situation that another institution is added to the list of institutions, and the arbitrary six-month criteria is relevant here as well. The arbitrary six-month exclusion has been widely criticised and highlighted as having no basis in evidence other than as a tool to exclude survivors. From a report in The Irish Timeslast year, we know that documents from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform warned that extending the scheme would “create a significant precedent regarding claims from many others in society who may feel they are also entitled to some form of redress or recognition payment based on any length of residency or attendance in an institution or other setting”. In a statement wholly ignorant of any research or personal experience of survivors, it is claimed that those who spent less times in homes would likely have gone on to live “comfortable and contented lives”. This position is, frankly, indefensible. I know we discussed it earlier but I do not think it can be said enough, and I would like to go into some more of the detail. The disregard for those who were born and spent time in a mother and baby home is highly immoral. It is disgusting that people are being denied any form of recognition because of what are, frankly, ignorant and hurtful statements from the Minister and officials in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

It is important to give a sense of the overwhelming evidence and recommendations for all survivors to receive redress, especially this group. First, I want to quote directly from the OAK report, which states:

...the majority of those who participated in the consultation process supported a universal, inclusive scheme. The largest proportion of written submissions stated that all mothers and babies who resided in mother and baby homes should be eligible for redress, regardless of the duration or year of their stay and regardless of whether children were accompanied or unaccompanied by their mothers.

Will the Minister address this in his response? The OAK report specifically states that survivors are seeking financial redress for those who spent less than six months in homes as children.

8 o’clock

The Minister is going to claim that the overwhelming priority need expressed is for access to records, but that is not what the OAK report says.

Second, when this restriction was first published last year, more than 30 clinical experts wrote to the Minister stating that childhood trauma has the greatest impact early in childhood. They pointed out that there is no threshold of time linked to this trauma and, as a result, having an arbitrary period of six months exposure is simply that, arbitrary.

Third, a whole range of groups and bodies are calling for the removal of this exclusion, including the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and the Clann project.

The committee was very clear in its recommendation that the six-month residency requirement must be removed. Anyone who was resident in the institutions should be entitled to a payment, regardless of the time spent therein.

In contrast to all of this, we only have the Minister's assertion that children would have been "too young to remember their experiences". In his response, could the Minister clarify if this is still his position? As Minister for children, what is his perspective on the importance of the first six months of a child's development and the role of parents in that period? There is no doubt that survivors were deeply impacted by their time in mother and baby homes and that they should be included in the redress scheme.

Amendment No. 63 relates to the addition of other institutions to Schedule 1. It could have a significant impact on many survivors. It is important that the Bill enables institutions to be added as easily as possible to facilitate survivors' accessing redress. This comes under the principle of timely access to compensation and the removal of time-based barriers, as outlined by the UN Human Rights Committee and survivors. Under the Bill currently, the Minister would need the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to add any institutions. Besides the implicit chilling effect that would have on any proposals, it is also a complex process prone to interdepartmental delays and discussion. Instead, amendment No. 26 proposes that the chief deciding officer and Minister are best placed to add institutions to Schedule 1. This is a simple and more efficient process that keeps the decision as close to those impacted as possible.

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This again gives us the opportunity to speak about the six-month timeframe. One of the things that we did in the pre-legislative process in the committee was to bring in specialists in childhood trauma. It is probably one of the best sessions that we have ever had because it was so insightful and very interesting in terms of how it works. None of us can know or say what damage is done if one spends two years, two weeks or two days in an institution. One cannot say that someone who spent more time there is more deserving of redress. We are looking for the Minister to accept amendment No. 26, but given the way the debate is going, I have a feeling that it is not going to happen. It is wrong to exclude 40% of the people who are affected. The Minister can make all the arguments as to the difficulty of knowing how the State genuinely apologises for this, but he should certainly not start by excluding a whole bunch of people. That is totally wrong.

Amendment No. 63 seeks to ensure that the other institutions that were not covered by the mother and baby home report, of which there are several, are included. We all know of many such places. I do not know the terms of reference of the report off by heart, so I am open to correction, but I imagine that it was supposed to be a sample or a point of reference. I do not believe it should have been just the institutions that were investigated that are eligible for redress. That would make all of the apologies by the State totally meaningless when it comes to paying out the money that would make such a massive difference for so many people. The trauma they have is as a result of the actions of the State in conjunction with the religious institutions. For example, so many people were never able to hold down full-time work. They are in a different financial situation now totally based on the fact that they had this childhood trauma. I totally stand against this, but for the Government to say that a person had to have spent six months in an institution to qualify is wrong. I do not care if I end up saying that 100 times in here tonight. While we have the time and the opportunity we must keep saying it. The same is true of the children who were boarded out and treated so horrifically. We are failing people all over again. I will certainly not have my name attached to that. That is for sure.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point has been made by many here, again and again in this debate, and in previous debates. It is tragic and unacceptable that the Government is not willing to acknowledge the central point that is being made. I will take this last opportunity to dramatise the issue for the Minister about why the exclusion is so completely unacceptable, and fails to acknowledge the human reality that the separation of mother and child involves.

One of the features of mother and baby homes is that when children were born in a home, which demonstrates the wrong that was done to the mother and child, is that the nuns required the mother to immediately bandage their breasts so that there would be no bonding at all between the mother and the child. If there was any bonding, that would make it more difficult to take the child away from the mother and vice versa. Can the Minister imagine how traumatic that was for the mother and the child right from the first moment, which is normally a moment of joy for the mother, when the instantaneous and unique bond is created between a newly born baby and his or her mother? However, that was immediately denied. A bond could not be created between the baby and its mother. It goes from there.

If people think about their own children at one week, two weeks, three weeks or four weeks, and that someone snatched their baby out of their hands and said they would not see the baby again, they could imagine the trauma that involves. The idea that we can set a timeline of six months and that before that there is not a trauma or something that deserves to be acknowledged as an abuse and as a crime against the mother and child is utterly incomprehensible. It flies in the face of everything we know about the relationship between a mother and child, and about the development of children and the shaping of a child's character as well as the scar the mother carries from that moment of separation on for the rest of her life.

The point has been made, but we need to take this last opportunity to appeal to the Government not to do this because it subverts, sabotages and undermines what was supposed to be the acknowledgement of the State of the wrong that was done and the abuse that was perpetrated. It makes hollow all of the apologies or the claim that the Government has learned from this and is serious about redress for all of those who suffered that forced separation - the mothers and the children. It is not too late for the Minister to reconsider.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak to the amendments in the order in which they were tabled by the Deputies.

As I outlined on Committee Stage, I am not in a position to accept amendment No. 26. In that context, I am of the view that the provision in section 15 has perhaps been misinterpreted. I will explain its intention. The section provides for a person to make a further application to the scheme in circumstances where another institution in which he or she resided is added to the list of institutions covered by the scheme. In all other circumstances, only one application should be made under the scheme in order to streamline the process for the applicant and enhance the efficiency of the scheme. Where a further application is made under section 15, the intention provided for under this section - the section that would be deleted if this amendment is successful - is to afford the most advantageous calculation possible in assessing the applicant's eligibility for payments and access to health services under the scheme. Therefore, when it benefits applicants to do so, section 15(4)(b) allows for their previous application to the scheme to be decided alongside their new application in order that the total number of days they spent in the combined institutions will be reckonable in affording an enhanced medical card, or a payment, where they had previously not satisfied the eligibility criteria for such benefits.

By way of example, a person might make an application to the scheme in respect of time spent in an institution listed in Schedule 1. In the context of this application, it is determined this person spent 150 days in the institution as a mother and is entitled to the general payment of €10,000. An additional institution is subsequently added to the scheme. This same applicant also spent time, 80 days, in that institution and makes a second application to the scheme in accordance with section 15. Taking her first and second application together, this applicant, having spent 230 days in total in the institutions, is now also entitled to apply for an enhanced medical card. This provision allows for the best possible and most favourable interpretation in calculating the benefits an applicant gets under this scheme. This amendment would remove that particular section. I do not think that is what Deputies want to achieve.

I am not in a position to accept amendment No. 63. It seeks to give the power to insert an institution into Schedule 1 to the chief deciding officer and to remove the need for the Minister to consult with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform when adding institutions to Schedule 1. The scheme covers the institutions considered by the commission of investigation to be the main such homes that existed during the 20th century.

The inclusion of an additional institution or institutions in Schedule 1 would expand the scope of the scheme. In that case it would be inappropriate not to seek the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform to include additional institutions. It would also not be appropriate for the chief deciding officer to have the authority to expand the scheme as his or her functions are restricted to the operation of the scheme and decision-making in terms of the eligibility of applicants from institutions listed in Schedule 1. The expansion of the coverage of the scheme is a policy matter for the Department to consider in accordance with the specific requirements set out in the legislation and, due to the cost implications of any additions to Schedule 1, for the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform to give consent to.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is right on this one in the sense that it is of benefit, but we are all in the position of having to read something very quickly and then trying to fit in everything else we want to talk about because our amendments have been ruled out of order. That is all I have to say. I thank the Minister for the clarification.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 27 to 30, inclusive, 50 and 57 are related and may be discussed together.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 15, line 17, to delete “as soon as practicable” and substitute “within a timeframe of no longer than three months”.

Most of the debate until now has been on the radically contentious and extremely controversial aspects of the Bill and the early years of the survivor's life, and for good reason. The first six months of anybody's life are extremely important. I am shocked that the Government discounts the importance of the relationship between mother and child and the physical effect and the emotional effect it has at that time. The Government's perspective is anti-science and anti-evidence and goes against the experience of every mother in the country. One of the difficulties I have with the Government's approach, and this Bill is an element of the Government's approach, is that the State has a long history of fighting citizens tooth and nail in trying to delay or stop redress. That is one of the reasons the country is now convulsed with the nursing home crisis and the crisis in CervicalCheck. There is not one person who has suffered an adverse experience with this State who does not face a combative, aggressive battle with the State to achieve justice. This is just another iteration of that long-time Government policy.

My worry, and the focus of this amendment, is that many of the survivors are at the other end of their lives. I believe the average age of survivors who would reach even this point in this controversial Bill is 70, which is incredible. It is stunning in all the wrong aspects. Many are not in great health. Many have had their health damaged by their experience with the State. My amendment simply seeks that the redress decision be made within a reasonable period in order that individuals can achieve the redress to which they are entitled and should get. Basically, I do not want to see a person wait for a further elongated period. With all the best will in the world, the State has previous form in delivering all these processes really slowly. The Minister's Bill states "as soon as practicable", but how long is that? Is it six months? Is it 12 months? Does a person have to wait a year or three years, potentially, before this is resolved? This amendment is a sound, fair, common-sense amendment which makes the process set in stone in law.

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 28 and 50 are very similar. They seek to have "as soon as practicable" deleted and substituted with "within 28 days". I say this on foot of the situation with the Birth Information and Tracing Act, where people are waiting far past the recommended time. Unfortunately, just today I spoke to somebody who is still having difficulty getting their information, particularly their medical information, so when I read "as soon as practicable", I think, how long is a piece of string? That is just not acceptable. There needs to be a much tighter timeframe. To substitute those words with the words "within 28 days" is the very least that can be done.

Amendment No. 30 is specific to people aged 75 or older and seeks that they would be prioritised on the basis of age and that their applications would be processed within 15 days.

Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These amendments - I am speaking to amendment No. 50 in particular - seek to ensure applications are processed in a timely manner. The current wording is too ambiguous and allows for too much scope. Survivors have waited years for any form of justice, and it is essential those who are eligible receive their redress as soon as possible. The only way this is possible is by adding this limit. I have no faith this system will be survivor centred, as with other schemes supposedly to help survivors. This would be bureaucratic and drawn out. We see this already with the immoral delays in people accessing their birth information under the Birth Information and Tracing Act. State bodies instantly interpreted the Act to allow them the maximum time to reply and then cite the exceptional range permitted. If we are to learn from that experience, it is important to add this limit. These amendments are especially important in the context of the Government's refusal to grant interim payments as requested by survivors. The OAK report states that the most commonly held view in respect of financial recognition was that an immediate interim ex gratiacommon experience payment should be made as urgently as possible. The least the Government should do, after repeatedly ignoring this point, is ensure the timely processing of applications is provided for in the legislation. Also, it should be noted this refers to 28 days in total. That is four weeks, not 28 working days.

Do other Members wish to come in on this-----

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. I agree with the Deputy.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Mattie McGrath wishes to come in, though.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Briefly.

Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

After that can we come back in?

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. At 8.34 p.m. we have to adjourn.

Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what I mean, though. The debate will not be finished. We can come-----

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will come back.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support amendment No. 27 in the name of Deputy Tóibín and the other amendments. As my colleague, Deputy Funchion, said, how long is a piece of string? There is a lack of clarity. We have had sad experiences with most elements of our public system now. That extends even to getting a passport or a driving licence, which are totally mundane issues compared with the seriousness of what we are dealing with tonight. There is the impact on people's lives and the age profile of the survivors. The Bill is just not fit for purpose in any manner. I said enough earlier. I support amendment No. 27.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support this proposal. People have waited long enough and there should not be uncertainty over getting a prompt decision. As has been said, we had reports and they were relayed to the Minister here recently. When was it we last discussed this? Was it a few weeks ago? We spoke about people having experienced significant delays in getting their personal information, so there is a problem. In locking this in, at least there will be a clear imperative and obligation on the Government to ensure people get decisions promptly and are not left waiting even longer. They have waited long enough.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I outlined during Committee Stage proceedings, I am not able to accept amendment No. 27 or amendment No. 28. This scheme we are creating will be the largest of its kind established by the State.

It is important that we are realistic about the timeframes within which the applications under it can be processed. Every intention will be taken to process the applications as speedily as possible. I assure Deputies that everything is being done in my Department to build the administrative infrastructure; operate the scheme and ensure we can have it open as soon as possible after legislation is enacted.

However, this is complex work and the administration of the scheme will require those operating it to engage with tens of thousands of applicants, particularly at the start when the scheme first opens. In many cases, because of the design of the scheme and because proof of residence in an institution will allow an application for many people, for the vast majority of people this will be a simple process. Due to the historic nature of the records, there may be occasions where there are challenges and there will be in the region of 34,000 applications coming in under this scheme. It is not possible to anticipate in every situation whether there may be some barriers to finding the relevant information that is necessary to prove an applicant's residency in an institution.

We want to move these applications as quickly as possible but the Bill is being crafted to recognise that there may be some more complicated applications, and in that situation, allowing the chief deciding officer to deal with them as soon as practicable allows for a more realistic timeline than some of the deadlines that are proposed by Deputies today. The Bill proposes to prioritise elderly applicants. If you look at section 16(3)(b), it clearly states the chief deciding officer "may accord priority to the examination of an application where he or she considers that it is in the interest of fairness and efficiency to do so, having regard in particular to the personal circumstances, including the age and state of health, of the applicant". In light of that provision, as we have a clear obligation to consider age and health status, I am not in a position to accept amendments Nos. 29 or 30. Those points are already reflected within the context of that section.

As referenced, in considering all of these proposed amendments and the potential concerns behind them that I acknowledge Deputies are trying to address, I am bringing forward amendment No. 57. This amendment provides within the Bill that "The Minister may issue guidelines for the purpose of providing practical guidance" to those involved in any aspect of the administration or delivery of the scheme. It is anticipated that these guidelines will serve to provide a detailed roadmap on how applications will be handled and the various points where an applicant can expect to hear from the scheme administrators in respect of their applications. Those guidelines will also set out in more detail, stemming from section 16(3)(b), how the prioritisation process operated by the chief deciding officer will work.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The State has much previous form in fighting people to the very end. With the CervicalCheck scandal, the State fought women in court up until the time they died. Many people have felt that in the past, the State has prolonged redress and justice for financial reasons. We see that the Government is wedded to the protection of its financial interests over its moral interests. Many people have died already while waiting for redress. It would be incredible to think we would have an open-ended process. If we need to employ people to get the job done at the right speed, then that should be the priority. What are the staff numbers that are likely to be working in this process to make sure it happens in time?