Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)

Thank you. When the State brought forward a scheme that focused on managing legal liability rather than the human rights needs of survivors, we had limits, delays and exclusions. It forced survivors to prove themselves again, to plead and to be retraumatised. This Government has had multiple opportunities to do the right thing regarding survivors, and every time it seems to choose the narrow the scope in order to avoid legal obligations. More survivors become retraumatised through the system, the hoops involved and all the bureaucratic processes. This cannot really be described as justice. It is an institutional failure being repeated once again in respect of people who are already survivors and victims of the system.

The Government's special advocate has expressed concern at how many survivors are being left behind. Women who spent time in State maternity hospitals, children who are denied recognition because they did not spend six consecutive months in an institution and families broken by forced adoptions and lifelong secrecy are all being excluded again. Excluding people from redress undermines the very apology the State gave in the first place. How can the State claim to apologise while actively leaving some survivors behind?

I will read from a letter from Ms Catherine Coffey O'Brien, who is with us today. She writes:

Twenty-five years ago we were given an official State apology. An apology along with legislation and redress was given to us by the Irish State but what was it for? It was for mass rape, starvation, beating, deprivation of education, the destruction of many families and the robbery of culture, issues which have never been properly addressed.

That speaks to the extent of the abuse and the horror that was visited upon people and their families.

My party leader, Deputy Holly Cairns, has spoken powerfully about the Government's callous and discriminatory approach. She has argued that the redress scheme feels more like an obstacle course that people are supposed to jump through rather than a pathway to recovery and justice. Holly has highlighted the pattern - eligibility narrowed, timelines rushed and trauma ignored. The Bill continues down that road. We have the enhanced medical card, but that is meaningless for some survivors because it does not guarantee access or trauma-informed care. There is no contributory pension for decades of unpaid forced labour. There is no legal obligation on religious orders or pharmaceutical companies to contribute a cent, something that even the special advocate has called out.

The Bill once again places the burden on survivors to make themselves eligible to the State, to apply, to wait and to accept what they are given. Human rights have to be at the core. Rather than looking at this through a legal lens, we should be looking at it through a human rights lens. That would bring greater equity and justice for survivors.