Marie Sherlock (Labour) | Oireachtas source

The Minister has sat through many hours of debates in the Dáil and the Seanad at this stage and, of course, countless other hours in internal meetings. Therefore, he knows the strongly-held views of many of us in this House, those of many of his colleagues in Government, the survivor groups, and even the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. We have to ask how we are still in this place after many months now of the Bill going through its various stages where we are still debating the exclusion of children and mothers who were forced into mother and baby homes. I have to keep on going back to the starting point. Why are we here to start with? Why do we have this Bill? We are here because of the hurt, the trauma, the abandonment of women who found themselves pregnant. We are here because the State failed by outsourcing its responsibility to the church and to these church-run homes. We are here because society turned its back on these women. We are reinforcing that hurt and that trauma and giving a new message now that effectively we have deserving and undeserving survivors depending on the length of time a woman and child spent in these homes. As Senator Higgins has listed, there have been many organisations that have come out against this six months limit. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has said that:

the six month length of stay is not per se an indicator of whether or not survivors suffered harm...

[...]

Moreover, even where a length of stay requirement could be [properly] linked to the relevant harms, the proposed six month requirement is based on the estimated length of stay in Homes in other countries. This time-frame has no rational, or reasonable link to the harm suffered by survivors in the Irish context.

Time and again, we have asked and queried the scientific basis for the six months and there has not been a reply. Today, in the Public Gallery, we have a lady called Ann Smith who gave birth in St Patrick's mother and baby home in 1983. She was left with no choice but to go into St. Patrick's because she was effectively abandoned by her family and by society because she had the audacity to become pregnant. For her and for the thousands of others, this is not about money. This is about recognition. It is about the recognition of what society did to her at that time, and to her daughter. This Bill is effectively saying to her now that what she had was some sort of minor experience; that there was no hurt or trauma associated with that experience. That is wrong, it is unfair, and it leaves a very bitter taste in her mouth and indeed in the mouths of many others who were abandoned by our State when they found themselves pregnant.

As I said at the start, the Minister has been present for the many hours of debate. He knows all our views here.It is sad because overall, we want to support this Bill, as I said on Second Stage. There are women, such as Margaret McKinney's mother Rose, who are moving on in years and who want to live to see that recognition from this scheme. There is a gaping hole in this Bill because it excludes so many. That is a great source of frustration. It is a sad day when we are excluding so many people when this Bill could get it right from day one, as opposed to waiting for a review down the tracks. We have made our points to the Minister.