Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister will have heard from all sides of the House our expectation that he will engage on and improve the Bill. In regard to the wider picture, he will recall that following the publication of the report of the mother and baby homes commission, points that had been made in the Seanad led to a slightly better approach to the access to records. As was outlined by others, however, that has not necessarily been followed through in practice. The delays are unacceptable and, as Senator Seery-Keary pointed out, raise questions regarding the timeline by which people are able to access their information and stories. In any event, the analysis that was presented both in 2015, with some of the original proposals on information and tracing, and later was found to be inadequate, challenged in this House and improved. I hope that, similarly, the Minister will listen to the points being made across the House in respect of the redress scheme and ensure that changes are made and that we get it right. I am glad to see the Bill has not been tabled for next week because there needs to be a period for engagement and for trying to improve it and to address the significant gaps. We do not need any more insult to injury for those who have suffered and we do not need yet another issue that falls short or leaves 40% of those affected feeling as though they have not been recognised.

As others outlined, the Bill, as currently formulated, goes directly against some of the recommendations of the committee but also, crucially, directly against some of the recommendations of the OAK report, which was the result of a consultation process with hundreds of survivors. The recommendations of the report were clear. A majority of the survivors agreed forced family separation should be among the criteria determining the level of redress received. A majority also agreed psychological trauma should be a factor, whereas only 28% believed the length of time spent in an institution was the appropriate measure for determining the extent of the redress. It is baffling, therefore, that the Government's Bill - it may not have been the Minister's decision but he has put forward the Government's Bill - goes directly against what we heard from the OAK report and against the thoughtful recommendations put forward by the committee.There are many stories of survivors that others have outlined. I might bring one or two in later, but there was one story that struck me in terms of the separation of trauma. It was published in The New York Times at the end of last year. It related to Carmel Larkin, aged 73 years, who was born in the home and separated from her mother. She did not even have a photograph of her. She was fostered out as a girl. Last year, she learned that the mother she never knew, Winifred, had spent a dozen years in a psychiatric hospital not far from Ms Larkin’s home. During those 12 years, she did not have a single visitor. This is what it is to be separated and denied a relationship, and then to feel that somebody you could have had a relationship with was not aware and there was no space for you to have had that contact with them. That is a trauma, and one that lasts.

If a child born in a home and forcibly separated from their parent happened to have spent less than six months in the home, they will receive no redress under this Bill. That is unconscionable. The proposed scheme excludes 24,000 survivors from redress, as has been outlined. Let us think about that six months. There is a reason why we have six months maternity leave, although not in the Oireachtas. It is so deeply acknowledged globally how crucial the first six months are to any child and its development and sense of security. The point was made about the scientific evidence on intrauterine trauma but let us talk about the trauma of that six-month period. We have heard of cases where children were even forcibly separated from their mothers in the same institution and given to others to nurse in order to ensure that a bond would not be formed. There is this idea about someone was not there for that long and moved into another home. It is a suggestion which does not come from scientific analysis that is in any way accurate about the first six months a child experiences. I fear the six-month cut off comes from a lingering of the old attitude that deeply pervaded the State’s approach for decades, namely, the idea that “We got you into a good family. Don’t worry.” There is an idea that a child has been moved into another situation that is somehow better. I remember back in 2015 when we first started really examining this issue we were told by officials that people moved on and they had these new opportunities and somehow that was supposed to be a positive thing. Yet the scientific evidence tells us about the trauma of separation. It tells us about what it is to have a parent in distress for a child.

Speaking of parents in distress, another deeply unacceptable aspect of this Bill is the idea that a mother who was forcibly separated from her child and happened to have spent less than six months in an institution would not be entitled to the provision of the full health service benefit by means of an enhanced medical card. One of the most intense and challenging things that any woman can undergo is the process of giving birth. We know the risks associated with it. We know from the commission report that the experience of giving birth in these institutions was often deliberately painful. I will quote from the confidential committee report, which states:

... what was additionally dreadful for them, they said, was the complete absence of pain medication. This, some alleged, had been deliberate since their birth pains were represented by some nuns (and nurses) as "punishment" - retribution by God for becoming pregnant out of wedlock.

[...]

The overall experience of birth was described by some as so traumatic that there were lifelong physical repercussions, while others were traumatised psychologically.

These are the institutions and the birth experiences that women had but so long as they were out of there before six months, the Bill does not think they need an enhanced medical card. That is inadequate. The minimum six months' residency must be changed both for children and the mother’s access to appropriate and proper enhanced medical cards.

There are other arbitrary exclusions as a theme in this Bill, and we will have a chance to tease them out. Take the exclusion of the survivors who spent time in institutions other than county homes and who are not entitled to any work-related payment. There is a very insulting suggestion that it is work that they would be doing anyway, yet the people driving the laundry back and forth from hotels in Dublin and wherever else was being paid. This is work that was taking place in these homes that needs to be recognised. Another important one is the failure to recognise the treatment of mixed-race children who were often not only placed in mother and baby homes but in nurseries of other institutions and were subject to additional racial discrimination and suffering in some situations. That needs to be recognised.

Then there is the inclusion of a waiver provision. This goes directly against the UN Human Rights Committee’s recommendation. There should be no waiver. We talk about a non-adversarial approach; that is not tying the arms of the victim behind themselves so that they cannot take other actions they may need to take to vindicate their rights. A waiver is unacceptable.

I have many more points to make. I have three pages of issues that need to be addressed, actually, which I will leave but I would make one crucial point. There is a lot of talk about a chapter in our history; it is a chapter in Ireland’s history. Yes, this will be a large scheme. It needs to be and we can afford it to be because we are talking about a systematic approach taken by the State. It was not an anomaly, so it needs to be treated in that way. People can talk about it as a chapter in our history, but let us be clear that for the survivors, it is not a chapter in history; it is their lives. We are talking about recognition of their lives and experiences, and the scheme needs to be comprehensive. We can improve the Bill and fix it, but we have to work together on it and we have to make changes.