Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

This amendment aims to ensure that relevant religious orders would be included in the list of secondary sources. This is again about the definitions of what might constitute a secondary source under the legislation. The current list of secondary sources includes registered adoption societies or accredited bodies, but we know that many religious orders played a key role in the facilitation of adoptions. Indeed, when we look at some of the other issues we have discussed, such as, for example, vaccine trials, and some of the economic exploitation sadly associated with Ireland's history in this area, there may be relevant information within religious orders.

The Bill provides that the Minister may prescribe additional sources as secondary sources where he believes those sources may have a relevant record in their possession. This again relies on the understanding that future Ministers will share the same position, understanding or orientation in that they will want to access information. That is the case with the current Minister. However, there is no guarantee that future Ministers will invoke their powers in that way. In fact, Ireland has a history of indemnity and of shielding religious orders from accountability, public pressure and public outrage. In many cases, there has been a failure in that regard. We see it still in the ongoing issue arising from the fact that many religious orders have failed to contribute their portions under the necessity to make proper and appropriate reparation or contributions to redress. There is a lack of confidence here. It is too weak a measure for us to rely on the discretion of future Ministers in respect of ensuring that relevant religious orders are brought under the remit of secondary sources. That is why I believe relevant religious orders should be named in the legislation as a secondary source. There may then be a discretion for the Minister as to which bodies constitute relevant religious orders but at least it creates a greater pressure in that regard.

The Minister expressed concern that a similar amendment we submitted on Committee Stage was too specific because I included in it particular religious orders. This updated amendment gives a degree of discretion to the Minister in determining which are relevant religious orders. It does not give discretion to the Minister as to whether religious orders may be considered secondary sources.

The Minister is aware that I feel strongly about amendment No. 23. It states that relevant psychiatric institutions should be included in the list of secondary sources. The current list of secondary sources only includes registered adoption societies and accredited bodies despite the fact that we know psychiatric institutions were part of an architecture of control. Those institutions were one of the means through which mothers were disappeared in order to stop them potentially obstructing adoptions and so forth. We know that psychiatric institutions were part of the set of dangers, threats and pressures visited upon women by the State. I have previously given distressing examples of women who were effectively institutionalised in post-natal distress and left in certain psychiatric institutions in this State for the rest of their lives. Relevant psychiatric institutions should be included in the list of secondary sources.

I have included the phrase "deemed relevant by the Minister" in the amendment and have thereby given discretion to the Minister in that regard. I know he may not accept these amendments but I am continuing to mark these points because as I said, I am not satisfied with what is included because we cannot see what may happen down the line. Frankly, I do not believe that another Minister will bring these institutions into the fold. This has been a difficult area on which to engage. The Minister has engaged in this very difficult discussion. We need to be as strong and clear as possible to ensure that every potential source of information is named. If they are not named in this legislation, we need them named and identified by the Minister during his term in office so that we have as comprehensive and extensive as possible a reach into the sources of information.

The Minister will be aware of the age of many of the people affected by these issues.If he cannot accept these amendments, I urge the Minister, subsequent to the passing of the legislation, to review the issue of secondary sources and not leave it to individuals to have to force the issue of making their case and having individual battles for information, and, in fact, ensure that the State will take the lead in trying to proactively identify such sources. For example, if other institutions and religious orders emerge and are named in documentation that will come through the already named secondary sources, and if psychiatric institutions are named on a regular basis in the kinds of documentation that will come from the already prescribed secondary sources, I ask that the list of secondary sources is appropriately expanded as quickly and as promptly as possible.