Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the Chamber. I rise today in support of the motion which will see the establishment of the office of authorised intervention that will oversee the excavation, recovery, analysis, identification where possible, and appropriate reinterment of the infant remains located at the site of the former mother and baby institution in Tuam, County Galway. This is a development which has been far too long in the making and comes as a great relief to the many survivors and relatives who have campaigned for the excavation of the site over many decades. I hope that this will be a helpful step in terms of bringing closure and delivering justice to those survivors and relatives.

While I rise in support of today's motion, I also must take this opportunity to express the significant concern I have in relation to the intervention, or otherwise, at other sites where manifestly inappropriate burials are understood to have taken place. We know that Tuam is just one of many sites where inappropriate burials took place, and while the nature of the burials in Tuam is known to be particularly abhorrent, this is not to say that other sites should not be intervened in. This matter was debated at length in both Chambers, including the fact that we were legislating not only for the intervention at Tuam, but potentially many other sites where inappropriate burials took place. We were reassured at many stages throughout the legislative process that our concerns regarding what we felt were narrow criteria for intervention were unfounded. Despite this, survivors and relatives learned earlier this month that the site of the Bessborough mother and baby home in Blackrock, County Cork, unlike Tuam, will not meet the criteria for intervention. This has aroused profound disappointment and hurt in many survivors and relatives who believed in good faith that the Institutional Burials Bill would bring about the closure and justice that they and their families so deserve. I recognise that there is a difficult balance to strike in terms of the rights of survivors and relatives and the wider public interest. However, I do not believe the justification offered recently to survivors in respect of the decision not to intervene at Bessborough is robust enough.

The justification offered was that an order could not be made to establish an office of director of authorised intervention "in the absence of identifying the burial places of children", as this did not meet the criteria outlined in the Act. Given that we only very recently debated the Act, and had extensive discussions regarding what exactly those criteria should be, this justification is especially frustrating. A few short weeks ago, it would have been possible for us to expand the criteria such that sites like Bessborough could have met the criteria for excavation. Many amendments were tabled to the original Bill in an attempt to do so, but they were not accepted at the time. We now must bear responsibility for the Act and the criteria for intervention provided for by it as legislators. The Act itself is not an external cause. We made decisions regarding the criteria set out within the legislation and we now need to take responsibility for those criteria.

Those survivors and other stakeholders who would like to see intervention at Bessborough deserve a considered response as to why one will not take place. We have to understand that from many survivors' perspectives, by denying them a thorough investigation of the site, we are denying them justice. I just want to briefly read from the words of Carmel Cantwell, although I know the Minister will be familiar already with her letter: "All of us in the Bessboro Support Group and the Bessboro Commemoration Group want the truth to be established. We want to respect every child and mother that died at Bessborough even if that means after an exhaustive investigation no mass burial site is found”. When speaking about the decision not to excavate the site, she simply said: "This is not justice." I recognise the complexity of the Bessborough site, and the wishes of some survivors and relatives that do not want the site to be disturbed. However, despite our best efforts, it seems that we are lacking a balancing of rights and perspectives of the various groups within this legislation. I am not sure how we can say that the legislation is fit for purpose if the wishes of a huge proportion of survivors are being disregarded. Indeed, Ms Cantwell asked, in response to the announcement about Bessborough, "What was the point of the Institutional Burials Bill?"While that may be quite disheartening for us to hear as legislators, this is the reality in terms of what affected people are feeling and we cannot dismiss that.

If we look to the principles of transitional justice outlined by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, a topic that has been spoken about many times within this Chamber and also at committee, it illustrates how transitional processes should be “context-specific” and “focused on the needs of victims”. I am concerned that the Act in its current form does not meet those standards with regard to Bessborough and other sites. I would welcome any clarification from the Minister in terms of any formal processes the Department intends to make or put in place to tease out the complexities of the Bessborough site. What avenues will be explored to attempt to balance the rights and wishes of survivors of Bessborough, including those who see a thorough excavation as the only path to justice? What other methods are being explored to examine the site forensically without excavation?

I welcome today’s motion and the establishment of the office of authorised intervention in respect of Tuam. I would, however, appreciate any clarification the Minister might be able to offer in respect of the other concerns outlined.