Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 14 calls for a report after 12 months on the potential for additional payments to be made available under the scheme for those who experienced forced family separation. We had to resubmit this Committee Stage amendment with a new timeframe of 12 months.

Senator Higgins argued at length on the issue of forced family separation on Committee Stage but it is important that I make it clear during this final debate. It is a gross abuse of the trust of survivors that forced family separation is totally absent and completely unrecognised within the redress scheme. The sole use of the length of stay and number of days criterion as a basis for this scheme goes directly against the recommendations of the OAK report, which was the result of a consultation process with hundreds of survivors. The recommendations of that report could not have been more clear. Some 64% of survivors agreed that forced family separations should be among the criteria determining the amount of redress received, while 61% agreed that psychological trauma should be a factor. By contrast, only 28% said that time spent in an institution should determine the amount of redress. It is not acceptable that this scheme should pass without the provision of any form of redress for forced family separation, which was clearly identified as the most traumatic aspect of time spent in the institutions for many people.

We have heard stories of mothers and children separated, often for decades, with no idea of who or where their family members were. We have heard of alienation and the loneliness and desperation that resulted from this separation and we have heard of the often irreparable damage that this absence did to people's lives. We have heard haunting and unforgettable stories, including the story of Carmel Larkin, who was separated from her mother at birth. She found out many decades later, only after her mother had died, that she had been living in a psychiatric institution not far from Carmel's home. In the 12 years her mother lived there, she had not received a single visitor. All the while her daughter lived down the road and was longing to meet and connect with her birth mother. How can cruelty like this ever be understood or made up for? Wrongs like this can never be made right but the fact this redress scheme does not even mention the term "forced family separation", and the fact this term is not mentioned once in the Bill, is a staggering omission. It is a gross abuse of the trust of survivors and a cruelty heaped on cruelty.

The redress scheme is not supposed to just be about money; it is supposed to be about recognition. Instead of recognition, what we see is almost a form of denial. It is a dishonest representation of the harm that was done to people. The number of days a person spent in an institution says nothing about what they suffered there or about what was taken away from them. Senator Higgins argued these points at length on Committee Stage and I am sure the response will be the same this time. The Government claims its justification for the length of stay criterion is to be non-adversarial but there is the potential for the payments scheme to adopt an adversarial approach while also incorporating a form of individualised assessment by taking a two-track approach as proposed by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC. It is possible to give people the option of applying for an award under track 1, based purely on length of stay and without the requirement to submit any testimony, as is planned under the current scheme. However, alongside this, an option should also exist to pursue an individualised payment based on testimony or evidence of specific circumstances or experiences like forced family separation. For some survivors, financial payments for specific harms experienced, alongside a general payment, would recognise the different forms and levels of harm survivors experienced. We know, because of the OAK report, that the majority of survivors want their experiences of forced family separation recognised.

Following last week's Report Stage debate, this amendment has new significance. It was everyone's understanding that when the legislation left the Dáil, all mothers who gave birth under the conditions of homes, would be included in the redress scheme. This was what was promised by the zero to 89 days in the Schedule. It was promised that mothers who spent any amount of time in the homes would be included. This would have meant that, while experiences of forced family separation are recognised nowhere in the Bill, at the very least all mothers who gave birth in the homes would have the opportunity to claim a general payment. Those who may have only spent time in the homes to give birth but who may have had their child separated from them would at least have received a general payment, which was in no way adequate but at least was not nothing. Since the addition of the Government's amendments Nos. 5 and 7 during our last Report Stage session, it seems these mothers may be excluded. This is especially cruel, given that when we are arguing against the exclusion of children who spent less than six months in the homes, the Government's frequent response was that at least all mothers were included. Is that even true anymore? I fear that many mothers who experienced the horror of their child being forcibly separated from them will not only not receive any payment to recognise this, but will not even receive a general payment under the scheme, which is totally unacceptable.

Amendment No. 18 follows on from our amendments on Committee Stage. It calls for recognition of the experiences of mixed race children in the institutions through additional payments for experiences of racial abuse and discrimination and also through the inclusion in the scheme of other institutions in which mixed race children were placed. This was argued at length on Committee Stage.I want to raise it again and put forward some of the key points. Mixed-race survivors have exhausted all possible domestic avenues for redress. There is currently no way for survivors to get justice in Ireland for historical racial discrimination in institutions, given the statute of limitations and other issues. This redress scheme should have been an avenue for justice for the survivors but offers nothing in the way of specific redress for racial discrimination. Again, we speak of an adversarial approach, but many survivors want to have their individual experiences recognised. Again, this entails the two-track approach proposed by IHREC. The approach involves the idea that, on top of a non-adversarial track whereby people would just get a payment based on the length of time spent in the institution, there should be an option of a second track, with an additional payment for those who want their lived experience of racial abuse and discrimination recognised.

In September 2022, UN experts called for adequate redress for systemic racism and racial discrimination in Irish childcare institutions between the 1940s and the 1990s. In addition, the Irish Racial Justice Forum made a complaint against Ireland to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, CERD. I thank Mr. Conrad Bryan again for all his work on this issue. It is very likely that, in the near future, the Government will have to outline how it plans to provide redress for systemic racism and racial discrimination in Irish childcare institutions between the 1940s and 1990s, to either the CERD or another international human rights body. Once again, I ask the Minister to outline the Government's plans in this respect. If he is refusing to provide redress for systemic racism in institutions through this redress scheme, when will redress be provided? That is a simple question, and a clear answer is owed to survivors who are once again disappointed by being rendered invisible by this scheme.

Amendment No. 19 calls for a report on the potential to provide additional payments to those who experienced illegal or non-consensual medical or vaccine trials in the institution. This amendment, once again, hints at the two-track approach proposed by IHREC. The approach involves the idea that on top of the non-adversarial track whereby people would just get a payment based on the length of time spent in the institution, there should be an option of a second track, with an additional payment for those who want their experience of medical experimentation recognised. The pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, which still operates here, declined to apologise for its vaccine trials in mother and baby homes between the 1930s and 1970s despite its own documents showing it conducted seven trials at homes over the four decades. It is unacceptable that the scheme currently does not provide any redress for the medical abuse of people subjected to illegal vaccine trials.

Our amendment also calls for the exploration of options to compel culpable pharmaceutical companies to contribute to the scheme. We have heard the Minister's argument on Committee Stage and that he is engaged with the companies. As many Senators have already said, this is simply not enough. We are beyond the point of asking politely for companies to contribute. This is why we must continue to press this amendment.

Amendment No. 41 follows on from our Committee Stage discussion. It calls for a review of the scheme to be triggered by rulings by international human rights bodies relating to justice for mixed-race survivors of institutions. It calls for the review to consider how the scheme could be brought into compliance with such a ruling. We modified the wording slightly because the Minister indicated on Committee Stage that it was too broad. He will note the new wording would trigger a review only in response to rulings relating to justice for mixed-race survivors of the institutions. The Irish Racial Justice Forum has now made a complaint against Ireland to CERD. Again, I thank Mr. Bryan for all his work in this regard. Ireland will have the power to contest the admissibility of the case. Once again, I urge the Government not to test the admissibility of the case and to allow it to be heard by CERD on its merits. This is the approach that the Irish Racial Justice Forum wants the Government to take.

As I have already outlined, mixed-race survivors of the institutions have exhausted all other possible domestic avenues. They engaged with the commission of investigation, whose report was deeply disappointing to them. The commission concluded that there was no direct evidence of different treatment or institutionalised racism in the records, and that there does not appear to have been systemic discrimination. This directly contradicts survivors' testimonies. The statute of limitations and the absence of historic laws against racial discrimination mean the individuals cannot pursue justice in the domestic courts. They engaged in good faith with the scheme and are once again going to be disappointed with its current form. In this context, CERD is the last forum for them in which to have their rights vindicated.

Ireland signed the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, ICERD, in 1968 and ratified it in 2000. Upon ratification, Ireland made the declaration under Article 41 of the convention recognising the competence of CERD to receive and consider communications from individuals or groups of individuals within Ireland claiming to be victims of violations by Ireland of any of the rights set forth in the convention. We have ratified the convention and given CERD the right to adjudicate on these matters, so it is now imperative that the State does not block the process by contesting admissibility. Our amendment, No. 41, would allow the scheme to be responsive to the results of a complaint heard by CERD relating to systemic racism in the institutions.