Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I, too, welcome our guests in both sides of the Gallery. I also welcome the people who are tuned in online to listen to this debate.

As a memento I have with me a little docket or complimentary slip from RTÉ, which is signed "A note from Mary Raftery". I want to acknowledge the enormous work that she did in advocating with her very well documented "States of Fear" documentary, to which I contributed and that leads me on to my next little story. I have a very extensive file on this issue because, as I said from the very outset in any of these debates, I was born in May 1961 and resided as a child right up to my teenage years in three residential institutions in Dublin, although I did have contact with both of my parents at various stages throughout and I am one of seven children. I did not know that I was one of seven children until many years later. Interestingly, after the "States of Fear" documentary, and an RTÉ documentary as part of a "Prime Time" programme - although it might have been a "Today Tonight" programme - in 1997 I received a letter from a now county councillor in Dublin City Council. I did not know it at the time but he became an assistant adviser to one of our Ministers in the previous Government. Strangely, today I met him as I walked down Grafton Street and I have not seen him since he left, having worked for former Minister of State, Finian McGrath, in the last Administration. So I have experienced a number of coincidences.However, when I was going through the file I received today I found a copy of the original handwritten letter from this particular councillor. He thanked me for my contribution on 21 July 1997. That reminded me of what a long time it has been. Today I came out of AIB on Grafton Street and I met the same person, whom I had not seen for a number of years. I told him the story. I can confirm that this individual was very successful, if I can use that term, in litigation against the Christian Brothers. That is for another day and it is well documented in the press. I told him that I look forward to seeing him here next week. I just want to set the context for how long I have been engaged in this system.

I want to start on a positive note and congratulate the Minister. I have no doubt about his absolute commitment. He has been a reforming Minister. He has addressed many of the issues regarding redress. He has taken on a difficult brief. His successors have not been so successful. I know his heart is in the right place. I know he brought this legislation as far as he could bring it. I believe from my contacts around Leinster House, in government and other circles, that he would have liked to have done more. That is just speculation on my part but I am firmly of that belief. I will continue to say that inside and outside of this House. However, the Minister is in government and he has to work with other people in government. That is the reality. I say again that I am a pragmatist and I know how it all works. In the general context of this legislation, I think it is good and progressive but it simply does not go far enough and I will explain why. Before I go any further I acknowledge the important work of the committee, which considered the mother and baby institutions payments scheme. I know some of the members are Members of this House. The committee made 21 recommendations. I will pick out a few of them. One was that the six-month residency requirement for children must be removed. That is what our committee said. Anyone who was a resident of the institutions should be entitled to a payment regardless of the time spent therein. Another recommendation was that the relevant religious congregations and organisations must contribute significant finances to the scheme fund. Another recommendation was that those boarded out should be included in the scheme and entitled to redress. That is a very special group of people, because they did not go through the proper procedures of adoption or fostering. It is true that some had good experiences but many had horrific experiences and they cannot be disregarded in this legislation that seeks redress for them. The committee also recommended that the waiver should be removed from the scheme. It went on to say that the Bill must embody the trauma informed response, including trauma, counselling and compensation that acknowledges the medical science-based evidence and aims to recognise the harm time in institutions was likely to cause. They are reasonable requests and for some reason, the Minister either does not have the support in government or of the political process to fulfil them. If I were a member of the committee, I would be exceptionally disappointed with that. That was their considered view. I have read the entire transcripts of their deliberations, and it is clear. I acknowledge the enormous commitment this committee has made, in terms of its comprehensive review, detail and sympathy. I have heard from many people who appeared before the committee and they were highly impressed. However, with that there was a high expectation that their recommendations would get over the line. Sadly, I am not in a position to say that. That is one group.

Yesterday I spoke about the significance of having the US President in this House last week holding up a beautiful baby full of hope and an abundance of love and joy. There was great excitement. It featured in all of our newspapers, and even in The New York Times. As I looked down the steps at the American President holding this child, it reminded me of the potential, the innocence and the vulnerability. I want to bring that back to those of us who have had children of our own, or who have close contacts with our nephews, nieces or whatever. We hear so much about precious life in these Houses but the life of a child is innocent and needs to be protected.The potential of every child is enormous. The Minister is telling this House, as he did the Dáil, that he is prepared to give limited redress to a mother who stayed one night in an institution. However, the Government is not in a position to give redress to an infant who may have been four months in an institution. Anyone in this House will know, whether they have had a child of not, whether they would have willingly allowed their child to be taken away from them. They would not. They would have killed for them, and rightly so. That is an important point to make. I also want to acknowledge Deputies Cairns, Boyd Barrett, Funchion and Connolly for their moving contributions in the Dáil, which the Minister of State will be familiar with. I sat in the Dáil and listened to them and they made very strong cases. They talked about the paternal bond, and the importance and significance. We all know the significance of children. We also know the outcomes that affect children for the rest of their lives.

To exclude them, therefore, is not acceptable. and cannot be allowed to stand. The other concern I raise today is the issue of drug trials and GlaxoSmithKline. I was in an institution where these drug trials took place. They are not in dispute. They are documented and published in the British Medical Journal, which is in the library in St. Stephen's Green. I was instrumental in an inquiry set up to investigate them, but which was subsequently wound down and never completed its work. This was under a module of the investigation into child abuse by Ms Justice Mary Laffoy. I have in front of me a letter from Brian Cowen on 4 December 1998, a letter signed by the current Tánaiste, Deputy Micheál Martin, on 26 October 2000, correspondence from Deputy Howlin and correspondence from Mary Harney, all of whom were Ministers for Health. That is how long this has been going on. To the credit of Deputy Micheál Martin, he came into both Houses and discussed this report into three clinical trials involving babies in children's institutions. Between 1960 and 1961, and 1970 and 1973 there were three sample cases of which the then State Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Kiely, was asked to commission a report. This report is in the Oireachtas Library. There are also substantial contributions in the Dáil records, which are printed and available to everyone, and are also in the Oireachtas Library. They refer to our children's right to bodily integrity.

We have to do something. My message is simple. I want to be positive. Seanad Éireann is a revising Chamber and I am asking the Minister and Government to work with the Seanad to pause this legislation. I know it is not on the schedule for next week. I would like us all to reflect on it. I would like us to pause this legislation and see if we can come together to address the issue of children who were subject to drug trials. It has to be validated. That is really important.

I will wrap up. According to the Irish Examiner,there were at least 13 vaccine trials carried out on more than 43,000 children in the State. That is 43,000 children in the State, and we are suggesting no redress for them. Finally, GlaxoSmithKline appears to be repeatedly pushing back against demands to pay reparations for the clinical trials in mother and baby institutions. I have a memorandum to hand stating that the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy Roderic O'Gorman, has urged the drug companies to accept corporate responsibility for the way these tests were carried out. I salute him for that but those are the basis of my concerns. It is positive legislation. Let us see if we can pause this legislation, just for a few weeks, to see if we can get other measures to address those short issues.