Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that the Minister is giving rationales in respect of the enhanced medical card. I do not believe they stand up. If we are talking about what occurs on the basis of need, experience and the commission's report, we must note there are major problems with that report. One of these is that the direct testimony of those who experienced harm in the institutions was not properly reflected in the findings of the commission or, indeed, its recommendations. So much of it was confined to the confidential committee section, which is just part of the report. It was dismissed and marginalised in the approach taken by the commission, as has been largely recognised. It is from the confidential committee report that we learn of some of the instances of physical and psychological harm. The lines I have quoted, including on the denial of pain relief and intentionally aggressive and violent approaches to managing childbirth, are from the confidential committee section of the report.

On the view that there was more harm if the period of residency was six months or longer, it is of course the case that six months or longer of malnutrition, abuse and further work have knock-on effects, but so too does undergoing a major life event in traumatic and hostile circumstances. So too does the failure to offer adequate supports. From speaking to persons who were adopted at eight months or nine months and who had siblings who were adopted at four months or six months, I learned that the condition they were in on arriving at their new homes was very damning. There are reports of foster children who arrived at their new homes with sores on their bodies and in incredible distress. We are aware that there were very significant health impacts on children. Evidence in this regard is available from those who were adopted and from the mortality rates in the institutions, which I have mentioned before.

Many women who spoke to the confidential committee, which was not easy and which in some cases occurred 30 or 40 years after institutionalisation, referred to the distress and pain associated with childbirth in the institutions. In their testimonies, they chose to highlight what occurred as something they wanted to be recorded and recognised as wrong. In that context, I do not agree we are capturing most of the harm by giving the enhanced medical card only to those who were institutionalised for six months or more. I fundamentally do not agree with that. I am aware the decision is not based solely on the Minister's assessment, and I do not want to attribute it to him personally, but I do not believe the logic stands up.

On amendment No. 40, I have an additional question for the Minister. It concerns a matter that has been raised with me. Others in my group may introduce amendments in respect of it on Report Stage. It relates to the powers of the Minister regarding additional institutions under section 50 of the Bill. While the Bill does not provide for or recognise the specific issues faced by those subjected to racial discrimination, a second issue arises under amendment No. 40, namely that of the institutions that get captured. I am referring to where persons were boarded out or subjected to other arrangements and to institutions where the State had a regulatory or inspection function. In this regard, it is worth noting the comments of one of the groups that has been very keen to make sure it is recognised in the Bill. In some cases, the State is not solely responsible for the abuse that happened within the scheduled institutions, but I am referring to where people were inappropriately boarded out or placed in other public institutions or under other care arrangements. People have contacted me to talk about their having been placed in circumstances in which they were subject to abuse, including very targeted sexual abuse. Again, the State had a responsibility regarding some of the locations in which children were placed.

On the regulatory or inspection function, I welcome the fact that there is the capacity to add institutions under section 50. The provision is slightly wider than one that would solely cover those of mixed race, whom the amendment addresses. Could the Minister clarify his intentions regarding the powers under section 50? When does he envisage them being used? Does he envisage them being used after or prior to the first annual report? What measures will he be employing under section 50 to address some of these issues? The proposal does not address the layered discrimination but may address some of the gaps where people disappeared from institutions listed in the Schedule, such that we can ensure the harm done has been captured.