Averil Power (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the fact that the terms of reference are not as narrow as had originally been feared. I acknowledge that this is a result of the consultation the Minister has carried out with the Opposition parties and, more important, with survivor groups in recent months. That is important and welcome. However, Fianna Fáil does have some concerns about the terms of reference. We have listened to the reservations expressed about them by groups, including the Adoption Rights Alliance, Adoption Rights Now, CMABS, Adopted Illegally Ireland, Justice for Magdalenes and others, including individual survivors who have written to me, as well as other Members, in recent weeks outlining their concerns. We support their call to amend the terms of reference to include specific mention of all the relevant institutions and those subject to illegal and forced adoptions as well as to ensure that we include adoptions from private homes. Forced illegal adoptions from private homes took place. It did not happen only through the mother and baby home system. For this reason we have tabled an amendment which, if accepted, would ensure that the inquiry would be genuinely comprehensive and inclusive.

I have listened to the Minister's remarks in the House, I read the transcript from the Dáil debate and I have heard some of the media commentary attributed to him in recent weeks. I understand the Minister believes the commission can carry out work in these areas within the existing terms of reference and that it may add additional institutions on top of those listed in the appendix. However, the Minister should understand the genuine fears of survivor groups because that is optional. It is only right to list all of the institutions at this point and I do not understand the reason for not doing so. We have set out to do precisely this with our amendment.

The Minister said that some other areas were outside the scope of the inquiry. Perhaps he was referring to issues such as forced illegal adoptions from private homes. They are not directly related to the mother and baby homes issue but of course they are part of the same overall issue. We have one opportunity to get this inquiry right and to ensure that we examine all the different aspects of how women and children were treated in this State through mother and baby homes, industrial schools and forced adoption. Indeed, to this day children are being denied information and not given the opportunity to reunite in the case of those who were forced apart through adoption.

The Adoption Rights Alliance has sent me a comprehensive list of areas of concern in respect of the Bill. Those involved are concerned at the way that the list of institutions, as currently set out, has the potential to exclude from the scope of the investigation two thirds of the women and girls affected by this issue because of the proscribed list of 14 mother and baby homes. They are concerned that this leaves out the conditions experienced by women and girls who went through State maternity hospitals, private hospitals, private nursing homes, general practitioner-assisted home births and other situations in which pressure was put on women to give up their children.

It is also concerned that the true extent of forced adoptions will be hidden. By only focusing on a narrow range of experiences rather than all the women affected in different settings, one will only get a small picture and not the full scale of the extent of forced adoptions. The same applies to illegal adoptions. We know many women were forced to sign consent papers immediately after the birth, which was against the law as they were supposed to wait a few weeks, or when under the influence of medication after having given birth. There were women who signed papers when they were under the age of 21. Women who have been in contact with me have told me that their age was falsified in those records. They were under age but were recorded as being of age so the adoption could proceed. We must ensure all of those practices are examined. Most illegal adoptions were undocumented and were carried out by general practitioners, midwives, nurses, solicitors, priests and others who did not have a direct connection to the mother and baby homes.

Illegal adoption is a huge issue. Theresa Tinggal has written to many Members about her experience and that of others who are part of the campaign group called Adopted Illegally Ireland. It is important we focus on those who were illegally adopted, who are some of the most vulnerable. They have the most difficulty in trying to gather their information. In many cases there were falsified birth certificates and so forth. Even when people who were legally adopted get access to their birth certificates, the document is meaningless because their adoptive parents' names are on it, not their natural parents' names. We must do more to help them and to ensure that all the records about illegal adoptions that are held in various State agencies, private homes and private businesses throughout the country are brought together.

The Adoption Rights Alliance is also concerned that the role of the State-appointed Adoption Board will be hidden again. In cases where it would have been obvious from the files that signatures did not match and so forth, the adoptions were still approved by the Adoption Board at the time. There is also the issue of the role of the State maternity hospitals. There has been talk of priests and nuns openly wandering around the wards when women were in a vulnerable situation having just given birth. That was facilitated by the hospitals when it was known that pressure was being put on those women to give up their babies for adoption. All of this, along with the role of the adoption agencies, must be fully considered.

These are genuine concerns. This is an opportunity to have a comprehensive inquiry and to ensure all of the relevant areas are covered. It would be unfair if some people were left behind because they do not fit within the narrow list of institutions and other criteria set out in the terms of reference. The Minister said that the terms of reference refer to children's homes, and that it is up to the commission to decide which homes to investigate and that it should include, for example, Westbank, Temple Hill and others. However, that is not specified and there is genuine anxiety about that. It would be better to list all of the institutions to ensure it is clear that it includes the three holding centres, Temple Hill, Stamullen and The Nurseries in Fermoy, as well as Westbank, Avoca House, Braemar House, St. Philomena's, St. Gerard's and St. Rita's Nursing Home. It should also include the Regina Coeli hostel, which strangely has been omitted from the list even though the sister hostel in Dublin has been included. The Minister says that these institutions can be covered, in his view, but it would be prudent and sensible at this point simply to add them to the terms of reference by accepting the amendment.

As I said previously, concerns have been raised by Paul Redmond and others in Adoption Rights Now about ensuring the terms of reference include the capacity to examine cases where single mothers in public hospitals were forced or coaxed to give their consent to adoption shortly after they gave birth.

The Minister said the county homes are included and I welcome that, as there were concerns that they would not be included. As the Minister said they had a major role in respect of separating mothers from their babies and there were difficult living conditions for the women in those homes. I appreciate that the terms of reference allow for a sample of those to be considered but it has been suggested that rather than it being a random sample, those who wish to come forward and tell their story should be able to feed into that sample. I do not believe that would be over-burdensome and it would be good that people who wish to share their story and have their voices heard would have the ability to do that, rather than feel excluded after offering to come forward and speak.

The terms of reference should also be amended to include the Magdalen laundries for historical inquiry after the main inquiry has ended in three years. There are some concerns about the scope of the McAleese inquiry in respect of the Magdalen laundries so I look forward to the Minister's response in that regard.

I welcome the establishment of the commission. It will be an important opportunity to investigate all of these practices and bring them into the open. It will give people an opportunity to speak about the hurt and torment that was visited on them through the mother and baby homes and our forced and illegal adoption system. However, if we are truly to do justice to the women concerned and their now adult children, we must introduce a right to information Bill. Senators van Turnhout and Healy Eames and I proposed a Bill some months ago to provide for that, and the Minister has had some time to reflect on it in the meantime. I hope he will work with us on getting that legislation through the House as soon as possible. What women went through in the mother and baby homes and in that environment, in which they were forced to give up their children for adoption, is not just a horrible aspect of our past but a haunting aspect of the daily lives of those women and of the children who were separated from them and who still do not know where their mothers are or whether they are well. They do not know anything about their identity. One cannot separate one issue from the other. If we are genuinely to do justice to the women concerned, we must introduce a right to information and establish a proper system to enable people to reunite should they wish.