Annie Hoey (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for coming to the House on this issue. On behalf of the Labour Party grouping, I express my sincere sympathies to all survivors and their families. We have received, as has every Oireachtas Member, an enormous amount of communication on this issue. We have met and spoken to survivors and affected persons and their families. Even when walking through the corridors of Leinster House, I have stopped and spoken to people who have been deeply affected by this issue. I want to put on record my personal thanks to those who have taken the time to speak to me and my colleagues about such a personal issue. I thank them for being so generous to share their personal experiences in order to ensure their voices are heard and there is adequate redress for survivors.

The proposals on the table in respect of redress were made in good faith by the Minister and the Department, and that work should get recognition. I welcome many aspects of the scheme. In particular, I welcome that the scheme will not require evidence of abuse or harm. Instead, it will be a more straightforward and accessible process. I also welcome that it will be a non-adversarial process. It is important there will be no gagging clause. That was a painful aspect for survivors of the residential institutions before the redress board was established.

As all present are aware and as has been highlighted in the House, however, there are outstanding issues. The scheme should be made more inclusive. My Dáil colleague, Deputy Sean Sherlock, proposed an amendment in February which would have given an entitlement to an enhanced medical card to women and children who spent any period in an institution. That entitlement would be without the six-month criterion. I do not really understand why the six-month criterion is an issue. I do not get why it is there. On behalf of the Labour Party grouping, I ask that the Minister brings those who spent less than six months in institutions into the enhanced medical card scheme.

Another issue for us is that of the six-month minimum term being a requirement to access the programme and the exclusion of children who were boarded out. My understanding is that the measures are expected to cost approximately €800 million but, obviously, there has been criticism in respect of the six-month figure being an arbitrary one. Many would agree that it is perpetuating discrimination and excluding 24,000 children. I do not understand why it is being included. The Minister may be able to give more reasoning on that. The six-month deadline is arbitrary. Any person who spent even a day in one of those institutions and who has to carry the trauma, stigma and societally mandated shame that came with being associated with one of them deserves our apologies, but also deserves redress. Although the six-month deadline may be necessary from a budgetary point of view, I do not think it is appropriate in this case.

When we talk about mother and baby homes, we are talking about one of the worst instances of human rights abuse in Irish history. That system was cruel, unusual and torturous for many who survived it. Although there are concerns in respect of the cost of managing a fund that would encompass all persons who were affected by the system, we have to realise that what we are trying to address is far more important than a budgetary item. The deficit of compassion that existed in Ireland at the time of the operation of this system is the gap that we are now trying to fill. It is important that we do so correctly.

I will briefly address the issue of who will pay. There is no point in beating about the bush on this one. Religious orders and church authorities were highly culpable in the running of these institutions. All present are conscious from the experience with the previous redress scheme that religious authorities have not always paid their fair share. As such, I am glad to hear the Minister is planning to meet or may have already met the religious orders. I may have misheard his remarks in that regard. I hope that engagement was or will be fruitful.

We have the opportunity to show the survivors of these homes the compassion and care that was so cruelly missing for decades. We are a wealthy nation by any standard and have the opportunity to provide compassion. This compassion will never erase the trauma with which many survivors still live but it could go some small way to easing the burden of that trauma. I hope the Minister will be the champion of that compassion in government, at Cabinet and in his Department for those in need of this assistance and those who need someone to advocate for them, listen to them and elevate their voice. That can be and is a role for the Minister. Obviously, he is fit to meet that challenge and he will be bolstered by other sympathetic members of Government and, undoubtedly, unanimous support from the Opposition in both Houses.

I ask the Minister to ensure we do not let this be the conclusion of this proposal,. We must ensure that it includes children who were born in a home and those who were boarded out, that it deals with the medical card issue and that the Minister takes on board the concerns of affected survivors and goes back to Cabinet and the Department to find the means to make this truly an all-encompassing programme. I believe that he wants it to be such a programme, as do all Members of this House and, most importantly, the survivors.