Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 14, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

“Report on extension of eligibility for provision without charge of health services under Scheme

19.(1) The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the potential to extend eligibility under section 18(4)for provision without charge of health services specified in paragraphs (a)to (h)of section 34(3)to all relevant persons who were resident in a relevant institution for any period of time, including those who were resident for less than 180 days.

(2) A report under this section shall include a breakdown of the number of persons who applied to the Scheme and were deemed ineligible as a result of the 180 day residency requirement, and the cost to the Exchequer of extending eligibility for the Scheme to include those persons.”.

Amendment No. 27 called for the direct removal and deletion of the minimum 180-day residency requirement for survivors to qualify for an enhanced medical card under the scheme. As a compromise, amendment No. 39 calls for a report after six months on the options and potential to remove that 180-day residency requirement. It also calls on the Minister to examine how many people applied to the scheme within the six-month period and were deemed ineligible specifically because of the 180-day residency requirement.

This exclusion is one I have particularly focused on as indefensible. I have highlighted it in terms of some of the collective amendments we discussed earlier. Some of the worst effects psychologically and physically, in terms of trauma sustained by persons in mother and baby homes, often happened within a short space of time. In particular, the extremely harsh conditions of childbirth and, in some cases, the actively cruel practices in the homes regarding childbirth, meant that enormous lifelong psychological and physical trauma could be sustained by mothers within a few hours of entering a home. The idea that only those resident for longer than six months would be in need of ongoing enhanced health supports is deeply wrong and dishonest when we look to the nature of what happened in these institutions.

I can raise the examples which I have given and other examples from the confidential committee. I refer to the deliberate denial of pain relief to mothers giving birth in these institutions. The report was that in some cases, the deliberate denial of pain relief was explicitly identified as part of the punishment women were being subjected to due to the simple fact of being pregnant. Separate to the confidential committee report having raised these issues, I have been contacted by people who spoke about the significant and traumatic effects that giving birth in these institutions had on their lives. They also spoke about their subsequent experiences of giving birth and the lifelong physical and psychological traumas and fears it created for those who went on and may have left institutions before six months to try to start a life or family but, nonetheless, were deeply affected by the damage done during a short time.

Objectively, this is one of the most intense physical and psychological things anyone can ever do. When people undergo it in a hostile institution and when we look to what kind of care women did or did not receive, the decision to simply say that the enhanced medical card will only apply to those who spent six months or longer in an institution is not simply creating a two-tier system and an exclusion, but rather is an exclusion which fails to recognise some of the core realities and particular difficulties people face.

This is a small amendment compared with the wider question of the scheme. The enhanced medical card and what comes with it in terms of lifelong access to support, counselling and physical therapy is significant. That should be available to all women who spent time and gave birth in institutions, regardless of whether they continued to reside in those institutions for 180 days. Amendment No. 40 relates to amendment No. 10. Amendment No. 10 was a direct attempt to ensure that mixed-race children who were placed in other institutions outside the Schedule to the Bill would be included in the Bill. Since amendment No. 10 was not ruled in order, this amendment instead calls for at least a report on the potential to extend the general payments and enhanced medical cards to all persons who, as mixed-race children, were placed in other institutions in respect of which a public body had a regulatory or inspection function, either directly or from another relevant institution in the Schedule.

The experiences of mixed-race children are currently not acknowledged by the scheme. Many may be excluded because they were removed to other institutions not covered by the scheme well before six months and in some cases this happened precisely as a result of racial discrimination. I commend Mr. Conrad Bryan and others in the Association of Mixed Race Irish for highlighting the very particular experiences and the layered discrimination and harm which were experienced by many of those who were mixed race in such institutions, and those subjected to abuse as part of the State's systemic treatment of those born out of marriage or those who were mixed race. They have highlighted that many members of their group will be excluded because they were removed from institutions before six months and were often treated differently as a result of racial discrimination. This is a gap which needs to be addressed.

Again, I will continue to highlight the issue of the waiver, which is not recognised in the scheme. It is an issue in respect of which persons, whether or not they benefit from the very limited time-based payments in the scheme, should be able to seek individual redress and legal action, and I hope they will. Crucially, there is a danger of a gap. These mother and baby institutions played a role in disappearing the reality of women who were giving birth outside the narrow confines of what society considered acceptable. They called it a problem and disappeared it from society by removing all of these families and then separating them from society. However, for those who are mixed race, there was an extra level of removal. In some cases, they were not just put through the mother and baby institutions and in that sense removed from society, but they were also being removed from those institutions and placed in further institutions. That is why we want to ensure that the double level of erasure of experience, and the double layer of harm, are recognised in the Bill. Perhaps there may be provisions under certain parts of the Bill, in terms of adding to the Schedule, where this could be addressed. There are wider issues regarding those who were boarded out and nursed out, which we may need to address on Report Stage.