Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for coming to the House. On one of her previous appearances in the Seanad, we discussed the issue of a former home in Tuam. I welcome her acknowledgement that the information that emerged in the Tuam case was not a surprise and the issues were known. It is, therefore, somewhat disappointing that the Government, including the Minister in her statement, is rowing back in respect of this issue. I refer specifically to the statement from the Government that there have been no findings of abuse or neglect. It adds insult to injury to hear that, based on an interim report, decisions will be taken on the basis that there is a blank slate and there have been no findings of abuse and neglect. Abuse and neglect are evident in every file and record we care to read and in every place in the ground we have been asked to look. If we do not know that abuse or neglect took place, for what did the Taoiseach apologise to the survivors of Magdalen laundries? We know there has been abuse and neglect. The task of the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes is to determine the extent, depth and various awful iterations of that abuse and neglect and offer guidance on how to move forward. We must begin from a position of acknowledgement and honesty, which I appreciate is one the Minister took in the past. I urge everyone to move forward in that same spirit.

In the limited time available, I will speak about some of the key recommendations of the interim report and the response to them. The report suggests some children were excluded from the remit of the previous residential institutions redress scheme and the re-opening of the scheme or introduction of a similar scheme should be examined. It is extraordinarily disturbing that the Government has suggested pre-emptively that it will mot be possible to implement this recommendation. I acknowledge the Minister's statement that the issue needs to be revisited when the final report has been produced. However, the message emerging on how we value or do not value the concerns regarding redress is completely unacceptable and must be examined. When arguments of cost are brought into the discussion, we must be clear that redress is non-negotiable.

Not only will it be necessary to establish another scheme but it also may be beneficial to do so because we must ask whether the indemnity agreement signed in 2002 would apply to a new scheme or applies only to the original scheme. What are all the provisions of the original indemnity deal and what constitutional challenge could be taken to it? What examination is taking place? It is extraordinary that we would write off not only the lack of contribution to the redress scheme but also the failure to re-examine the issue of indemnity in light of the considerable new and different evidence that has come to light in areas such as forced work, vaccinations and forced adoption. These issues were not on the table when the deal was originally and wrongly signed and must be examined.

We give tax breaks to corporations and provide major tax reliefs for private pensions. We are making many decisions on the budget. We must budget on the assumption that the State will contribute to redress. What is the Minister's position on the need to re-examine the redress funds?

The issues we are discussing are not crimes of the past because the moneys made and paid by the State to the institutions are still in play. The Bon Secours order has a hospital programme and has established modern and complex company structures, as we saw recently in respect of maternity services. The profits and benefits that accrued during the period of exploitation are still in circulation and must be examined. For this reason, there cannot be an amnesty at this point given that we are emerging from a period of ongoing obstruction of information and justice and when the acts in question, even if culturally sanctioned, were criminal under the Constitution and in law, even at the time they were committed. We must ensure that regardless of the cultural sanctions that applied at the time, crimes committed in the 1960s or 1970s which led in many cases to death and long-term damage remain crimes and must be investigated. Many of those who engage with the commission of inquiry want to be clear that in engaging with the commission they are not compromising the possibility of criminal investigation into what were in many cases criminal acts.

When we consider indemnity, a similar question mark arises in respect of amnesty. In terms of transitional justice, while I have sympathy with the view that we should seek to do this work, I suggest that we have not yet reached that point because we are facing extraordinary obstacles in terms of willing participation in the redress scheme and willing sharing of records by many of the major actors. Transitional justice cannot be between society and the perpetrators of the abuses. We cannot in any sense bypass survivors whose voices must not be used to promote a healing process for society. One of the most extraordinary experiences I observed in my time in the United States was a healing and reconciliation process which took place between those who protested against the Vietnamese war and those who fought in that war. Extraordinarily, the Vietnamese people were missing from the process. If we have transitional justice, it must not be associated with an amnesty and the voices and experiences of survivors must be at front and centre stage.

I urge the Minister to meet representatives of the Irish First Mothers group. Many people who have been hurt are entitled to be angry and frustrated. The Minister referred to meeting unaccompanied persons in the institutions. The voices of the mothers of the children who spent time in these institutions have not been adequately heard. I am conscious that I will not have time to share the words of survivors but I hope I will have another opportunity to do so. There were 472 deaths in the Bessborough Home in 19 years. People who spent time in the homes speak about crying every night, being tracked down when they escaped and forced to sign adoption papers and-----