Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. I wish to speak on a number of matters and indicate areas whereby if the Minister is sincere in what he is discussing, there is scope for him to bring changes. We had hoped that perhaps the concerns that had been raised right across the House - I acknowledge the members of Government parties who raised their concerns - would mean that something different would be done in respect of the three-week gap. We are deeply disappointed in that regard.

I had expected that the issues we have raised in the context of the review would be contemplated in the Bill. The Minister does not have a say regarding what is ruled out of order in the House, but he does have a say in the context of the amendments that the Government brings forward. I urge him, between now and Report Stage, to reflect on the issues again and bring forward proposals.

I want to identify some of the key areas to which the Minister referred and in respect of which he could and should be bringing forward amendments on Report Stage. He mentioned the review. That review is very narrow and technical in nature. It literally just gives the numbers of those who are - and this is key - eligible for a scheme. We will not have the figures for those who apply for the schemes and are refused or found to be ineligible because of one of the many potential pitfalls that have been signalled. There is no scope for the State to learn if issues arise. There is also the question of whether some of the figures we have heard regarding the potential costs may have been somewhat exaggerated. I refer here to what the costs might have been if, for example, we had a wider scheme. In the context of the sad and embarrassing litany of institutional abuse schemes the State has had to put in place, we know that all of the money allocated has not been spent because so much work has gone into making them difficult to access and apply for. These schemes have tended to underpay people, which is not a badge of honour but one of disgrace.

The Minister has the scope to take on board the points and the qualitative questions raised in Senator Boyhan's amendment and that in my name include them in the review. That is entirely within his gift. It is a change he can make.

I want to pick up on something that is very important in the context of the waiver. This is a core contradiction. When we tried to include issues such as the additional prejudice experienced by those of mixed race - these people were subjected to racial discrimination - and when we talked about those who experienced other forms of abuse, particularly in the context of medical trials, the Minister stated that his goal is to ensure that people will not have to raise or testify to each of these issues and that the scheme will simply apply.The Minister has said his goal is to make the scheme such that people will not have to testify regarding each such issue; however, it is not the case that the State is taking a neutral position on these issues. The State is limiting the rights of persons affected by additional issues through how the waiver section is designed. Under the waiver sections, namely sections 31 and 32, people will not be able to institute civil proceedings and will have to discontinue any other proceedings instituted against a public body that arise out of circumstances the same as, or substantially the same as, the circumstances to which the application concerned relates. The Minister is not just saying the scheme is part of the wider picture; he is, in fact, limiting the rights of persons to take action against public bodies regarding the specific abuses to which I refer. I hope that is not the intent.

I had amendments that I was going to introduce to clarify specifically whether, in circumstances where you are getting a payment that is based only on time spent in an institution and does not recognise the abuse received - your having been boarded out, racial discrimination, forced separation or the fact that you were used as a guinea pig in trials by a huge, successful corporation that is still very wealthy - you are waiving your right to take action on any of these issues, because they are not the subject of the application. It is ambiguous at the moment. It is really important to be very clear. We should be compensating people regarding this range of issues rather than not doing so and rather than asking them to waive their right to take other civil proceedings on issues and abuses. What I am saying points to an ambiguity in sections 31 and 32. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify the position. Senator Boyhan and I were clear that we are very concerned about how the sections and the waiver will operate and the knock-on effects of the waiver. I would really appreciate it if the Minister gave a detailed response on how it will pan out and operate.

The Minister mentioned the wider picture and, indeed, the burials Bill that passed through the House recently. I am aware of the great distress among many who still do not know the whereabouts of their family members but I want to signal another connection between that Bill and the one before us. Again, it goes back to the decision to exclude those who spent less than six months in an institution. When we consider the child, infant and baby mortality rates in the institutions, the 80% child mortality rate that I believe obtained in Bessborough in the 1940s and the very large number of infants who died in the institutions in their first six months, should we not be very vigilant and assume a high likelihood that those who spent two, three or four months in an institution may have experienced significant health impacts? While they may have survived and will not have contributed to the high rate of mortality, it seems logical to assume – and it is implied that – they experienced health impacts because of how they were treated or, as is evident from reports about Bessborough, absolutely brutal intentional malnourishment and so forth. Again, this suggests not only that we should not have a two-tier system and exclude those who were in an institution for less than six months but also that we should recognise that there may have been very specific abuses within the first six months.Again, that points to the fact we should not have a two-tier system and we should not exclude people from the first six months. We should recognise there may have been very specific abuses within the first six months. In fact, it is extremely important to include those who were there for that six-month period and who, unlike their peers, may have been lucky enough to survive that six months.