Annie Hoey (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I wish to speak in support of this amendment. I know a number of amendments have been ruled out of order, which is obviously extremely disappointing, particularly when they refer to a cost on the State. I do not know that we could ever really calculate the full cost of the impact that mother and baby homes had on people's lives. If we are not even going to be able to discuss the amendments because they have been ruled out of order and require money messages, we should at least be open to the amendments seeking a report on the operation of the scheme.

We in the Labour Party have an issue with the six-month exclusion. As many people have said repeatedly, a child who was resident for 179 days will receive nothing compared with a child who was resident for 180 days. I understand it has been calculated that 40% of survivors would not be eligible for any scheme because they do not meet the six-month requirement. On the basis of fairness and equity, we think that the requirement is arbitrary and permits no consideration of the context of a person's life. Even the Leader, when questioned about this, said that she did not understand where the six-month provision had come from or why it was there. Therefore, I am not just speaking on my own behalf or on behalf of the Opposition in raising concerns about that.

The report would look at those who were used for vaccine trials. While I am open to correction on the number, I think 1,148 children were involved in clinical trials which included vaccines against diphtheria, measles and other serious conditions. My understanding is that none of the mothers involved, some of whom were as young as 15, appears to have given consent for their children to be involved in those trials. We know that some of those mothers have health issues, psychiatric disorders and other things. It is believed that at least four different vaccine trials were conducted at St. Patrick's, Navan Road - Pelletstown - and three at Bessborough. If those amendments are going to be ruled out of order, I would support the motion for a report after this so that we can consider whether these children should be included. GSK, the successor to the company that administered the vaccines, has not taken any corporate responsibility for this and continues to operate.

The report also mentions racial discrimination. We are still not recognising the double discrimination that mixed-race children faced. The report also looked at boarding out. We firmly believe that those who were boarded out should be included in the scheme and entitled to redress. They did not go through the proper procedures of fostering or any sort of basic decency of child protection measures. Many of those children had horrific experiences. It is not correct that they would be disregarded in this legislation.

The amendment on the inclusion of maternity hospitals of certain institutions has been ruled out of order again owing to the requirement for a money message. At least if one of the amendments seeking a report were accepted, it would provide an opportunity to assess whether those people should have been included in it even though I feel like we have been talking about this endlessly. Many people have put forward ideas and suggestions as to how this Bill could be improved. At a minimum, however, we should include a report to look at all these issues.