Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for their detailed engagement with the debate and discussion today. I thank those who have joined us to listen both in the Chamber and online. We all recognise that this scheme is awaited by survivors. It is critical that we get the legislative framework in place as soon as possible. Any scheme brought forward by a Government cannot meet all expectations. I recognise that in bringing this forward.I appreciate there is a real depth of feeling, held by many, that the scheme does not go far enough. I stress that it is one element of the Government's response to what happened in these institutions. Unfortunately, the scheme can only deliver so much.

I will try to respond to the points made, some of which were raised by several Senators and others individually. There was reference in particular to the six-month period individuals must have been in an institution to qualify for payment. The proposals under the scheme, as brought forward in this legislation, were developed and put to the Government by an interdepartmental group. That group went further than what was originally suggested by the commission as to which groups might qualify for redress. The commission spoke about including women who spent time in institutions before 1974 and children who were unaccompanied. That recommendation would have included approximately 6,500 former residents for financial payment. When the interdepartmental group brought forward its report, it proposed the six-month criterion, whereby anyone who had spent more than six months in an institution would qualify for a payment, while those who spent less time would not. This would have meant some 19,000 people qualifying for a payment.

When the Government examined this proposal, which took a significant amount of discussion in the summer and well into the autumn of 2021, it decided to go further and include a payment to all mothers regardless of the time they spent in institutions. This was done in acknowledgement of the traumatic effect of being admitted to one of these institutions and the stigma, which many speakers referenced, faced by mothers after they left. This has led us to a scheme under which financial payment is being proposed for 34,000 former residents and provision of an enhanced medical card for 19,000 former residents.

The rate of payments was raised by a number of Senators. The graduated rates under the scheme proportionately acknowledge that more prolonged exposure to the harsh conditions, which we know from the commission's report existed in these institutions, was endured by those who spent longer periods in them. We absolutely recognise that no amount of money can make up for what people experienced in the institutions. The decision by the Government to go beyond the interdepartmental group's recommendation and include mothers regardless of the time spent was taken in order to provide some recognition of the particular and unique lifelong impact that being admitted to one of these institutions had, irrespective of the time for which women were resident there.

Senator Boyhan, as ever, made his points incredibly eloquently and with the benefit of his personal experience and his engagement with so many people over many years on the issue of vaccine trials. The scheme, as we have designed it, provides an all-encompassing general payment for eligible applicants in recognition of time spent in the institutions, the harsh conditions and the emotional abuse and other forms of mistreatment, stigma and trauma experienced by people while they were resident there. It is designed to be a non-adversarial process in order that people can come forward, show they were in an institution for a certain period and therefore qualify for the relevant payment. Under previous redress schemes, people were asked to come forward to speak about and provide oral evidence of the abuse and trauma they suffered in institutions. Indeed, under some schemes, people were cross-examined on their evidence. We know that was the wrong way to go. That is why we have designed this scheme on the basis that if there is evidence of residence, that is it and the payment is made. It was a decision we made early on in the process to make the scheme simple and, most importantly and insofar as we could, to avoid the retraumatisation of people having to go through an adversarial process. In order to deliver such a scheme, we could not design it to take account of particular issues, whether that be the subjection of individuals to non-consensual vaccinations or individuals' belief that because of their race, they experienced particular treatment in an institution. It should also be noted that we know the vaccine trials went far beyond just those who were living in mother and baby institutions.

Following the publication of the commission's final report, I met with representatives of GlaxoSmithKline, GSK, to whom I conveyed my view that all relevant parties, including that company, had a moral and ethical obligation to take appropriate action on foot of the report. I urged them to consider what the report had laid bare in terms of the company's actions. It should be noted that those actions were taken by the precursor organisations to the current GSK but, nevertheless, I urged the representatives to respond appropriately given their wider corporate responsibilities. They wrote back to me following that meeting. It is ultimately a matter for the company to decide what response it takes but I am aware that it has decided not to take any action in terms of a monetary contribution to any scheme. It has arranged for access to information for those who might wish to seek it from the company. The Senator probably will be of the view that this is not sufficient. I am of the same view, which I conveyed to the organisation when I engaged with it.

Senator Seery Kearney and others referenced engagement with congregations. Following the commission's report, I commenced a process of engagement with religious congregations and church leaders with a view to discussing how they might contribute to the payment scheme. Meetings commenced on an individual basis with each of the religious congregations and lay Catholic organisations involved with the institutions. At those meetings, which took place in December 2021 and January 2022, we looked to outline the details of the proposed payment scheme and to discuss how the congregations and organisations intended to contribute to the costs of the scheme. I recognise the importance of these discussions to survivors and the public. While the matter is ongoing, it is being treated as confidential, which is the only way to be able successfully to proceed. A full report will be provided to the Government when the negotiations are concluded. I always said I wanted to prioritise the delivery of this legislation and that its delivery should never be predicated on the conclusion of the process of engagement with the congregations. I want to get the legislation done. Even though it has taken time, we have looked to prioritise its provisions as much as possible. The negotiations with the congregations will continue. When they come to a conclusion, irrespective of what that conclusion is, I will be accountable to both Houses for it.

A number of Senators spoke about the situation of persons who were boarded out in Ireland. We recognise that some people who spent time in mother and baby homes were boarded out, but the reality is that people were boarded out in many other instances as well. Many were boarded out directly from their homes or, indeed, from other institutions. I was tasked with designing a scheme for those who were in mother and baby institutions and county homes. That is what I have sought to do and this is the scheme I was tasked to design. It is important to say that if anyone was boarded out from a mother and baby institution and was in that institution as a child for more than six months, he or she will qualify under the scheme for the period spent in that institution. As with the situation of those who underwent non-consensual vaccination trials, this scheme is designed around individualised assessment and individualised evidence not being used. It is based on the amount of time spent in an institution. I recognise that this does not allow for the individualised experiences of those who were boarded out. I recognise that some of those experiences were deeply abusive. However, we have not been able to design a scheme that achieves the goal of being non-adversarial, simple and allowing people to qualify by dint of the time spent in an institution while also allowing for individualised assessments that look at individuals' situations.Several Senators spoke about the issue of the Birth Information and Tracing Act 2022 and the delays experienced. I am glad of the opportunity to speak about that. To date, since it was opened for the provision of information in October last year, 7,800 people have made requests for information, which is a very significant number. There have been approximately 800 applications since the opening in 2021 of the database of the mother and baby homes commission, which was held by my Department, so it is a much greater number. That is partially to do with the extensive information campaign we did domestically and abroad.

When the legislation was going through the Dáil, we added the time periods, they were not suggested in the pre-legislative scrutiny report. We decided in the Department to put in a 30-day normal processing period and a 90-day period for complex cases. Sometimes I wish I did not do that but it was the right thing to do. People should get information within a period of time. There was a significant number of applications at the start because, as we know, people have been waiting for literally decades to get access to this information. It is important to say that of those 7,800 cases, 3,500 have now been answered. Some 3,500 people have received a reply from either Tusla or the Adoption Authority of Ireland in terms of the provision of information. There is still a backlog in the organisations and I am in contact with the relevant parties. I will meet the Tusla board on Monday and this will be one of the issues to be discussed. It is working through the backlog. I believe by the end of the summer or October, it will be back to a steady state and people will get their replies within the 30-day or 90-day period. People are getting information. People have contacted me to say that they got their birth certificates and saw their birth names for the first time ever. This legislation is delivering. I recognise that for people who have been waiting for so long, this additional delay is a source of real frustration. I reassure people that we are working with the organisations to make sure that backlog is worked through and the vital information is delivered.

Senators McGreehan and Seery Kearney spoke about the vulnerability of those who will receive payments under this scheme, which we recognise. It will not be in the legislation but we are putting in place measures to address that. Similarly, there will be a detailed information campaign around this legislation domestically and internationally to inform people of their rights. We understand many of the people who will apply under this legislation are living abroad now and felt they needed to leave the country following their experiences in these institutions. I was going to speak more broadly and try to locate this legislation within the wider set of measures the Government is taking, some of which I spoke about earlier. I spoke about the Birth Information and Tracing Act 2022 and the Institutional Burials Act 2022, regarding records and the memorial centre, which survivors have spoken to us about. Some of the measures have been concluded and some are being advanced but all are advancing.

The Senator spoke about the vulnerability of survivors and former residents. We are working with local authorities to get a better understanding of how they may identify people in their areas who are former residents and may be vulnerable. The Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, has established a working group in which my Department, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, the County and City Management Association, CCMA and local authorities are represented. The working group is examining practical supports, which the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, urged me to look into. The group is also examining the issue of local memorialisation. It is also important to recognise that these sites are all over the country and, in some areas, their status is undetermined. Senator Hoey spoke about the issue of counselling. Free counselling has been available to all former residents of these institutions since the commission's report. To be honest, it is not taken up a huge amount and I advise Senators, many of whom know survivors, to make that information available to them. It is designed, free and former residents are given prioritised access to this counselling from the National Counselling Service, NCS, set up under the HSE and is trauma-informed. The reason that is not referenced in the legislation is it exists already.

An issue raised in the past was the importance of the use of sensitive and appropriate language, which is something we discussed particularly in the Birth Information and Tracing Act 2022 in terms of terminology around mothers, birth mothers and what is the best way to proceed. My Department, through the Irish Research Council, funded research in the University of Galway to investigate this issue. In February, the University of Galway published the findings of the research on language, terminology and representation of those directly affected by mother and baby and county home institutions. It is a useful analysis of the use of stigmatising language and how, even today, we can still inadvertently use inappropriate language. Some of these issues are perhaps different in scale and magnitude from the legislation we are addressing today, but all are issues that survivors have raised with many of us. It is important to set what we are doing today in terms of the range of responses the Government is taking, having listened to survivors and having sought to meet different responses. We all know different survivors have different personal priorities regarding how they want the Government to respond. I look forward to a further exchange of views with Members of the Seanad and to working with them to bring forward the best possible legislation in order that survivors can finally access the benefits of this scheme. I ask that Senators support this legislation so we can provide these benefits as rapidly as possible.