Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators Warfield, Boylan, Gavan and Ó Donnghaile for amendment No. 14. The amendment is extensive and cuts to the very core of many of the issues with this legislation. I do not know how we can justify calling it "incorrect" rather than "illegal".

I will share an experience. I met a family last weekend. There were six children, all of whom were illegally adopted from thet institution the Minister has spoken about at great length. It is one of the institutions about which we have the most information. Two of the children, two boys, were eight weeks apart in birth. When the adoptive parents came to pick up one of the boys and saw another one, a nun said, "You might as well take him too", and they did. They stalled his birthday for one year to bring him into line with their designer family. All of those children had everything in terms of material provision. They lived in a lovely home. They were put on display and dragged to the front of the church every Sunday. The family were much admired by the congregation for their kind work in adopting these children.

However, it became clear after a short period of time that the children developed at different levels. None of the children were connected by blood; they were not related by blood. Those two boys joined the other members of that family. There was a certain amount of social engineering involved to reflect what the adoptive parents thought was right and correct for this family. Some of the children excelled academically and others did not do so well. They all went to the best private schools in this State. They were one of the wealthiest families in the State. They were assisted by the particular adoption society and guild. They were fitted out with Catholic certificates and baptismal certificates, and the State was fully aware of it. These people were in a powerful position within this State and it was not uncommon for politicians to sit at their table on a Friday or Saturday night and play cards. The children were brought in to entertain the politicians. I am completely satisfied as to the truth of the story. I know the people involved, who are personal friends of mine. How can we square all of that?

One of the children, at the age of 14, approached the mother and asked who they were and where they belonged. The mother gave them a slap across the face and told them not to ask questions and not to be ungrateful. That is the reality of it. They had access to the best of the material world. They went to the best schools. Some of them struggled and some of them excelled.

Returning to the core issue, all of these children say they were not facilitated by the agency.All of them say they were not facilitated by the agency. Two of them arrived at the door of the agency, but they were not facilitated in any way. They were told that they were the most ungrateful brats in terms of the good care and the good family that had worked for them and supported them. This is not uncommon. I was telling them about the proposed legislation the other day. Some of them do not talk about it very much. Others verbalise a lot about it. I asked them what the biggest issue is for them. Two or three of them do not have passports. They have never engaged with the State. Two or three of them have never paid a penny to Revenue. They worked illegally on the black market. They are the sort of realities. They are paranoid about the State and the systems, and they do not have a sense of identity.

I am not going to lay the blame for all of that on anyone, because that would not be the right thing to do, but one of the recurring themes is that they say they were illegally adopted and they want that to be acknowledged. It was facilitated by the church and the State. I asked them what they would ask for if they could ask for one thing. If possible, they want to be connected to their families. The families may not even want to be connected with them. That is the reality of it and they are aware of that. They want it acknowledged by the State that the State was fully aware of it. For the past 30 years they have been banging on State agency doors telling them about it, and they have not had a lot of help or support. The word "illegal" as opposed to "incorrect" is important for these people. While it is only a word, it is very fundamental. It is very important, and it goes to the very core of this legislation.

I can attempt to suggest why the Government is resisting the use of the word "illegal" over "incorrect". Is it that there is potential litigation down the road? So be it, if there is. I do not have an answer. We know that drug trials were carried out on the kids in institutions and we know the State had reasons there. I am not going to go into that right now. If possible, could the Minister outline in two or three sentences what advice he has received about the option of using the word "incorrect" as opposed to "illegal"? That is very important for these people, and they need to understand it. How can we stand in Parliament and somehow agree to water down the impact of illegality? If it is illegal, it is illegal. Who gave consent? We can argue there was not a regulatory framework in place, but we now have an opportunity to address this issue. I would like to hear from the Minister what the advice is around all of that, because it is perhaps the most important aspect of this legislation.