Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am sorry we have to press the Minister so on this. I have been paying attention and we have been listening closely to his responses on other sections. What he did was outline in some detail the process whereby the decision on the six months was reached, including the facts that the Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation made even worse recommendations and would have excluded more people, that the high-level departmental group wanted to exclude both women and children institutionalised for under six months and that the Government decided it would include all the women but that the six-month rule would apply only in respect of children. He described the process whereby the decision was arrived at but has not yet described the rationale. He did not do so on Second Stage or since then, and we did not see the rationale in the public domain.

I assure the Minister that there are thousands of people listening really closely to hear the rationale. We have not been told why the decision was made. There have been hints that it may have been because of the cost and hints almost to the effect that we could get away with the decision because other places have had cut-off points; however, there has been no rationale for the cut-off point of six months that was presented. Specifically, there has been no rationale from scientific, moral, child health expert or international redress practice perspectives. Therefore, I have to disagree with the Minister that he has provided reasoning for the six-month cut-off point. An explanation of the process whereby he made the decision, or a timeline, has been given but there has been no substantive rationale.

I do not want to reiterate the arguments because they are distressing. What we have presented is a really strong rationale as to why the affected people should be included. I do not want to go through all the arguments in detail but suffice it to say they include the content of the OAK report, the fact that what we are calling for is what the survivors looked for, the fact that the first six months of children's lives are incredibly important and have a huge impact, the fact that there may have been forced family separation in the first six months, and issues I mentioned concerning the child mortality rate and, by implication, the child health impacts of spending one's first two, three or four months in an institution. We have given many reasons as well as the general principle behind not having a two-tier scheme. I have given in summary some of the reasons those subject to the six-month rule should be included, but we have not heard the rationale as to why they are not included. It does not have to be the Minister's rationale but we need to hear the justification. It is legitimate that we keep asking for it because it needs to be put on the record.

On that note, I am going to point to the other issue, which I have also raised. Again, I would like to know the rationale because it is important. This is an important section because it concerns eligibility. While the mothers who were resident for less than six months might be relevant persons under the scheme, they are excluded from access to the enhanced medical card. This relates to some of the health services specified. I would like to know the rationale for excluding women who may have spent a shorter period in an institution from access to the enhanced medical card. I seek this information particularly as we know that the riskiest time for women in terms of medical and health consequences might have been over the one or two days they spent in a mother and baby home giving birth.We know from the commission’s reports and the testimonies given to the confidential committee that, in some cases, pain relief was deliberately denied to those who were giving birth because it was a punishment for their circumstance. When we have that kind of situation, how can we deny enhanced medical supports to people who may have experienced such a significant medical trauma? We have raised those two specific issues as areas we want to have included. We also raised them on Second Stage. Has there been any consideration of the points raised on Second Stage on the need to review and perhaps think again about excluding women from the enhanced medical card when they have had a difficult experience in a hostile institution in giving birth? Indeed, maybe given the points that were raised across the House on Second Stage, the rationale for the 180-day requirement might need to be weighed up a little bit again. I think we deserve responses on those issues, and responses that reflect and acknowledge the strong points that have been made across the House.