Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I take the point.

Unfortunately, I am not in a position to accept the amendments, which propose reports after 12 months to determine the potential to make additional payments to specific groups of survivors and to cause a review of the scheme following any decision, opinion or recommendation of international human rights bodies.

In addition in response to Senator Hoey's point, as I outlined during Committee Stage proceedings the scheme will provide an all-encompassing general payment to eligible applicants. As I have said previously, this is recognition of the time spent in the harsh conditions in these institutions, the emotional abuse and the other forms of mistreatment, and the stigma and trauma experienced by them in these institutions. It is designed explicitly to create general recognition. It is designed explicitly to be non-adversarial so that people do not have to bring forward evidence of the specific traumas they faced. This recognises that previous schemes were criticised because people had to do this here in Ireland and in other jurisdictions. The general payment under the scheme is intended to recognise all of the circumstances a person experienced while resident in a mother and baby or county home institution. It does not require people to bring forward specific evidence of the harm or abuse they experienced in that home.

It is important to note the scheme recognises experiences in mother and baby and county home institutions only. It cannot take into account the experiences that children experienced in other institutions if they were moved to them. As we know, there are redress schemes for some of the other institutions such as industrial schools and Magdalen laundries. This is why I have always argued in response to amendments such as this that it is important that amendments we make to the scheme, and reports the scheme requires to be written, are focused on what the scheme is about. The scheme is about a very large number of people, with 34,000 potential beneficiaries. If we are to write reports, they should be on the content of the scheme and not on the content of other elements of the legacy. I know and I recognise the large legacy of the institutional treatment of children, women and people with mental health challenges. We are not in a position to deal with every element of it in this Bill. The Government gave the Department a directive to respond to the mother and baby and county home institutions. This is what we seek to do.On the amendments dealing with the vaccine trials, I hate to be a broken record but this is what has happened. I have met with GSK and outlined my views very strongly. Its representatives spoke about how the company's staff felt hearing what happened in these institutions and about the forerunner of GSK's involvement in that and about how hard it was for those staff. I accepted that but I also said that there had to be more and that there needed to be a concrete acknowledgement. The company has provided a pathway for people to get information on whether they received a vaccine from the records GSK holds. I indicated that, while that is welcome, it does not go far enough. That continues to be my position.

I have also made the point that vaccine trials were not just happening in mother and baby institutions and county homes. They were happening in some industrial schools and other residential institutions. Non-consensual vaccine trials were also happening in the community. As I have said to Senator Boyhan previously, I am happy to continue to work with him to see whether there is some way to advance this issue by means of a State response to these non-consensual vaccine trials but I do not believe this Bill is the correct avenue for that. It never could be because it only deals with mother and baby institutions and county homes and the issue the Senator speaks so passionately about, these trials, was not just confined to such institutions. Senator Boyhan knows there was an attempt to go as far as a tribunal, which is one of the most serious steps the State can take, but that this was torpedoed. I deeply regret that. It could potentially have provided the answers the Senator and so many other people seek. As I have said, I am happy to work with the Senator to see what the next steps forward are but I do not believe they can be manifested in this particular Bill.

On amendment No. 41, the State absolutely takes its responsibility to investigate and address historic wrongs and allegations of human rights violations extremely seriously. Since 1999, the State has undertaken investigations into allegations of abuse in a range of institutional settings. These investigations have sought to establish facts with regard to the operation of these institutions and the treatment of residents within them. As the Senators will know, with particular regard to mother and baby homes and county homes, when the Taoiseach delivered his apology in January 2021, he specifically referenced the additional impact on children of mixed race in these institutions and mentioned the "additional impact which a lack of knowledge and understanding had on the treatment and outcomes of mothers and children with different racial and cultural heritage". It was important that the State apology recognised the additional impact on those of mixed race who passed through these institutions. If, at any point, a ruling comes in from CERD or any other international body that requires some changes to this legislation or other legislation, the State will respond. The State has always responded when international human rights committees have made negative findings against Ireland. If it happened at a time when I was Minister, I would certainly respond. I would expect that any future Minister would give the same response.

With regard to forced family separation, the Government absolutely recognises the fact that, during the lifetime of these institutions, pregnant women faced great barriers, from stigma to a lack of financial support and family support, which left them little or no choice regarding their decision to give their child up for adoption. All of us know, from speaking to mothers who were in these institutions, the range of reasons why they felt they had to give their child up for adoption. That is why I believe the approach of the single payments scheme is the right approach. We all know how deeply traumatic those experiences were for the mothers and former residents we have spoken to. To be a recipient of this particular scheme, mothers do not have to speak about that particular experience. They just have to demonstrate, through the records, their residence for a certain period of time.

We know that these adoptions happened over decades because of direct, emotional or financial pressures. If we create the twin-track approach the Senator speaks about and if there is a second element that requires some degree of proof to be presented, that proof will have to be evidenced. I am sure the Senator would argue that we would not use a civil standard and that we would use a lower standard. Legislation could provide for that but it would still have to be evidenced. There is risk associated with creating a twin-track system in which everyone gets something but those with evidence of something worse happening to them get a greater payment because only those with that requisite evidence could benefit from that additional stream. The experience from other systems is that, where people were in a scheme that required an element of evidence, particularly when they were not able to meet the standard set, they were deeply retraumatised. I worry about creating a two-tier system and the legislation giving the possibility of getting more to recognise people's specific situations and people then not being able to provide the relevant evidence because of a lack of time or because the people who were in the room have passed away. That is a very real possibility. I accept that others disagree with that but there is a fundamental risk in creating a two-tier system in which evidence is required. Under the process as set out at the moment, all an individual has to demonstrate is that the records show that he or she was in the institution at the time in order to be eligible for a payment.

It is important to note that the amendments we brought forward the last day in the second grouping seek only to protect the existing policy and the existing remit of the scheme. There is no potential in the amendments we brought forward to reduce eligibility for the 34,000 people we believe are eligible. A person who spent at least one night in one of the listed institutions as a mother will be eligible for the general payment. This remains the case after the adoption of the amendments. The schemes were only ever designed to apply to those who were in mother and baby institutions and county homes. The amendments only seek to provide necessary clarity around the terms and purposes of these institutions. Again, there has been no narrowing of the ambit of the scheme. We believe that, when those amendments are in place, 34,000 former residents, both mothers and children, will continue to be eligible for the scheme.