Annie Hoey (Labour) | Oireachtas source

While recognising the significance of where we are with getting a Bill together on this particular issue, because it has be rumbling on for so long, as other speakers have said, this Bill, as it has gone through the Dáil, lets down some survivors. Unfortunately, there is no question about that. We have the opportunity in this Chamber to ensure that this Bill properly offers redress to all the survivors of the mother and baby homes. My Labour Party colleagues and I will continue to advocate on behalf of those survivors. We have a member, Mags McKinney, with us today.

This Bill omits more than 40% of survivors, including children who spent less than six months in an institution and those who were boarded out. The six-month requirement is arbitrary and makes no consideration of context. A child resident for 180 days could receive €12,500. A child resident for 179 days would receive nothing. I wish to speak, if I may, for the 40% of survivors who will not be eligible for any scheme because they do not meet the six-month requirement. On the basis of fairness and equity, the six-month requirement is arbitrary and permits no consideration of the context of a person’s life. The idea that a child who spent less than six months in a home suffered no damage or injury and is not entitled to redress is just unacceptable.

I ask that we have regard for those babies, persons and human beings who were resident for that period of time from birth until six months to be included in this scheme on the basis on fairness, justice and equity, in order that the scheme can encompass more people, who we all feel – certainly on the Opposition benches and I think on Government benches also – have a right to be included. Deputies and Senators have all received hundreds upon hundreds of emails from campaigners, former residents and general members of the public who simply wanted to have their voices heard on this issue, pleading with the Government to expand the redress time limits. Not one person has contacted our offices – certainly not mine, anyway – to tell us to proceed with the Bill as written.The debates we will have in the Chamber are a final opportunity to expand the remit to include all former residents, regardless of the length of time spent in the institution, and we simply want these people to be included. We want any report into or review of the scheme to ensure they are included in order that they will not be excluded forever and that the next generation of politicians - as Senator Gavan highlighted, we might be here for but a fleeting moment and a fleeting vote - will not have to revisit this in the next session and the sessions after that.

I would like to read into the record an extract from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, briefing on the Bill and specifically some of the problems the organisation has identified with it. It states:

The Bill makes it more difficult for survivors who resided in an institution at a young age to claim compensation. Whereas the General Scheme of the Bill [which the committee considered] allowed child survivors to claim a payment if they were, or had reasonable grounds for suspecting they were, residents, the Bill only allows a child to claim who “was resident” [which seems to be very specific language]. For children who may have no documentary evidence of their residence, this sets the standard of proof too high.

The Bill provides no compensation for forced and illegal adoptions, forced labour, unlawful vaccine trials, abuse as an adopted child, and death. Nor does the Bill provide compensation for discrimination whether based on gender, disability or race. The latter issue of systemic racism in institutions was recently highlighted as a serious gap in this Bill by UN Special Rapporteurs.

The term “work-related payment” used by the Bill does not adequately describe lived experiences. It should properly be described as “forced labour”.

The levels of payment provided by the Bill in respect of the “work-related payment” are inadequate. They must correspond to the wages that survivors should have earned at the time and be linked to the average industrial wage.

The Bill does not count a “temporary absence” of 180 days or more. There is no room for context. A survivor may have excellent reasons for having left the institution and returning. For example, a survivor may have escaped for 181 days before being caught and returned. That period of 181 days could not reasonably be separated from their time in the institution.

The enhanced medical card proposed in the General Scheme has been replaced by health services without charge and is available for anyone resident for 180 days. This residency requirement is arbitrary and should be removed.

Survivors resident outside of Ireland are entitled to a payment of €3000 instead of health services without charge. This figure is far too low and is not reflective of the value of the services available to those receiving health services without charge.

Survivors have called specifically for trauma-informed counselling and therapies. This is not provided for in the Bill [although I understand it could form a separate aspect].

There is no requirement in the Bill that those charged to administer the Redress Scheme must be qualified for the position and be subject to ongoing training in international human rights law and trauma-informed responses to gross human rights violations.

There are numerous issues with the Bill but the most striking one relates to the exclusion of children who spent less than six months in a home.

The Government's intention to pass the legislation as it stands means it will diminish the suffering of the survivors, 40% of whom will be excluded. As other Senators said, this is our opportunity to change that. The whole point of the Upper House is to examine legislation, provide critical analysis of it and propose how we can make it better and more workable for survivors. I hope we will have the opportunity to do that over the coming weeks.