Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I endorse all those excellent amendments. They are logical, fair, they make sense. All those issues were echoed and touched on in the excellent report by the children's committee of which Members of this House were members, which is teased out to a great extent in the Bill digest on the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Bill 2022. I hope we will hear from them at some point in these deliberations because quite frankly, sitting in a committee room and making recommendations and then coming up here where we make the real legislation is somewhat disappointing but there is time yet to run.

I will deal with each of these amendments. On amendment No. 33, which deals with reports on the adequacy of the payment for health services to relevant persons who are not ordinarily resident in the State, Senator Higgins set that out clearly and I agree with all the points she made and fully support it.

I note we are dealing with these four amendments at this point. Amendment No. 34 provides for a report on the provision of additional payments for those who experienced forced family separation. The Minister is long in this business, understands it in great detail and has great empathy and sympathy on this issue but many families were forced to be separated. It was illegal. The State was complicit in taking children from their legitimate parents for all sorts of spurious reasons, sometimes motivated by other family interests or conflicts. They went into State care and while many did not stay for many months, we are effectively saying that anyone who was in an institution for less than six months is not entitled to any redress. If we know anything about children and institutional care in the more modern times of the 1980s and the 1990s, we saw the litany of abuse children were subject to. Are we suggesting that no child who was in any of these institutions for less than six months was not somehow the subject of some form of abuse, be it emotional, physical or sexual? It is not tenable, realistic or right. Therefore, something has to be done about it. This sort of clear-cut, clinical legislation that excludes groups of people is exceptionally disappointing. I noted that children are excluded. While I do not particularly like to cite my own case, I am the seventh child of seven and I lived in an institution. I had legitimate parents who were both married. I do not need to explain any more but the State was complicit in the exclusion and division of those families. I am conscious that when I speak here and speak about myself, I speak about others and that is a sensitive issue. I do not have their consent to talk about their personal experiences, hurts, or disappointments. That is something that families appreciate, respect and understand. What I can say is that I grew up with many children who came in and out in very strange circumstances in an institution that was not run by the Catholic Church but by the Church of Ireland. We do not hear too much about them but they were huge. They had big institutions in Dublin at the time. Therefore there are situations where children, through no fault of their own, find themselves as pawns in a whole range of situations when in care and that is exceptionally disappointing. It is insulting and hurtful and I have been in touch with many of them and many of them have been in touch with me and no doubt other people.

Amendment No. 35 provides for a report on top-up payments for those in receipt of inadequate settlements. Again, Senator Higgins went into detail on that. Amendment No. 36 provides for a report on the creation of a support fund for those with additional needs and Senator Higgins touched on the illegal vaccine trials. I too was in an institution where illegal vaccine trials were carried out. There is no dispute about it. Following years and years of denial by various Government agencies and people saying it did not happen, we have full sight of the vaccine trials that were carried out in these institutions through contacts within RTÉ and within the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Bessborough in Cork was another one. Ironically, many years ago when Deputy Micheál Martin was Minister for Health, I came to this House and the Dáil when he commissioned Dr. Kiely, the then Chief Medical Officer of the State to carry our random samples in different institutions because clearly they did not cover them all and there was no doubt about that report. There was a very moving sharing of the content of that report by the now Tánaiste but then Minister for Health and there was an acceptance that these drug trials took place. What will we do if they are not included in this scheme? How will we address and police GlaxoSmithKline and others who carried out illegal vaccine trials? One of the things that is clear is that in institutions and orphanages where children were detailed, there was no parental consent. Who was in loco parentis? Who made the decision? We know the drug trials took place. There is now no denying that, subject to the State saying it for years, and who will compensate those people?Alan Shatter of Gallagher Shatter approached me then. At the time, I had done two or three interviews with "Prime Time" or some other current affairs show on RTÉ. He contacted me and said he would like to initiate or represent a group in a group litigation case. Unfortunately, we did not have the sort of money that Gallagher Shatter was looking for at the time. The tenet of his argument, rightly so, was the right to bodily integrity enshrined in our Constitution. We have the right of bodily integrity enshrined in our Constitution for all citizens. However, these are children and there is constitutional provision and special mention of children in our State.

The question is whether the Minister has any other proposal to run in parallel. I am a reasonable, pragmatic person. It is not about me. I just so happen to have lived the experience so, therefore, I am perhaps connected more than most to it. What is the alternative? Will the Minister bring a parallel process of redress or investigation?

He wrote to GlaxoSmithKline and there was a situation where they would not put their hands up and admit it. I know they have confirmed with individuals. I am aware of bits of litigation, some successful and some not so successful but it would not be responsible of me to share that with the Members because it is relates to individuals. What is the Minister’s intention to square this up? How can we as legislators square up and walk outside the gate here tonight or tomorrow and say that we are not doing anything of it? I have seen too many tears in here and too many emotions. Too many people have told us that it is all terrible, troublesome and sad. This is a parliamentary democracy. We have the opportunity to polish up this legislation. The Minister will bring amendments back to the Dáil - he might correct me on that – on the matters to do with the legislation. We have that opportunity to bring in amendments. As the Taoiseach said many times, Seanad Éireann is a place to home in on and polish up legislation.

I am interested to hear the Minister’s proposals on the administration of illegal vaccine trials on children. A lot of evidence was gathered on this. As he knows, there was a tribunal of inquiry, which was found to be ultra viresultimately, and ran into the sand, not going any further. The then Government did not appeal it to the Supreme Court, which it originally indicated it would. They are, "Events, dear boy, events", and we just have to move on. I am particularly keen that the Minister tells us because we have heard so many stories of medical interventions and experimentation that nobody authorised or sanctioned on children who were vulnerable in the care of the State. As experts say, they did not kick the doors in; they were welcomed in to carry out these trials. We do not have a definitive list of the adverse reactions of some of the children. We know some of these children died in State care and these drug trials took places in the 1950s, 1960s, into the mid-1970s and perhaps beyond that point. Many of these institutions were funded by the State. The State had some sort of oversight on them, though perhaps not as much as it has now or should have had. The reality is we have to be able to explain what we are going to do about it. That is why I like the idea that we can be some way open to an early review of this legislation. I am open to the idea or suggestion that the Minister would set up a parallel process immediately to deal with it. However, to suggest that they are doing nothing, when he says that, he is saying “Nothing” to me. He is saying “Nothing” to Victor Boyhan, a person who grew up in State care where the State had responsibility and an institution administered drug trials. The Minister is not saying "No"; I am saying the Minister is saying “No” to me and many people. I do not doubt for one moment his commitment to these issues and I know the difficulties of having to operate within a coalition Government and getting consensus across Government partners.

I particularly welcome the Minister’s statement today. It was interesting that Senator Higgins touched on accountability and contribution by the religious orders. I note from the Minister’s statement that he had ongoing engagement with the religious organisations and congregations. However, there comes a point where he has to stop having ongoing negotiations and recall that a previous Administration signed up to an indemnity scheme that was nothing short of a bloody disgrace. They sold out for paltry contributions of money and bits of promised land that were all entailed – I think most have never been built on. No new school or hospital has been built. We were sold a pup. The time has now come. I accept the Minister has always made the point that he wanted to run this strand slightly separate to this process and I understand and respect that. However, by golly, when this legislation is through – and I have no doubt the Minister will get it through and I would like to think with some amendments but that is perhaps a lot of hope on my part – we must commit to following up, getting accountability and getting the money off the religious congregations that were responsible.

Finally, I return to the vaccine trials. We now know that some of these institutions received money. It was not just dishing out kids to advance new forms of medicine or vaccines; it got money for it. They were paid for it, which makes it even worse.