Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Oct 2022

Vol. 1028 No. 5

Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Bill 2022: Second Stage

Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (Deputy Roderic O'Gorman)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Today I am bringing the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Bill before the House. The primary purpose of the Bill is to establish a scheme to make payments and to provide a form of enhanced medical card to eligible applicants. The scheme will recognise the time spent and the harsh conditions, emotional abuse and other forms of mistreatment, stigma and trauma, experienced by people while resident in a mother and baby or county home institution.

I reiterate that the Government is under no illusion that there is any financial payment or service provision that could make up for the immense pain and suffering endured by so many of our citizens whose lives have been impacted by the shameful legacy of mother and baby home institutions in Ireland. That immense pain has had a unique impact on each and every survivor. We cannot take that pain away and I am truly sorry for that. However, we can offer support to all of those who need it and ensure that such things never happen again.

I thank survivors for sharing their experiences with me and with many of Members here today to help us all understand what they have been through. Recognising the unique impact of time spent in these institutions on each and every survivor requires a wide range of tailored remedies.

Redress means different things to different people and as such the Government's action plan for survivors and former residents of mother and baby and county home institutions seeks to provide an enduring response to the priority needs of all those concerned. The mother and baby institutions payment scheme is one action in this broad-reaching plan, which spans a wide range of priority issues that have been raised by survivors and includes significant commitments across the areas of apology; access to personal information; health supports; financial payments; memorialisation; records, archives and databases; education and research; and dignified burial.

The ongoing work in this area is a top priority for me, with eight of the 22 commitments set out in the action plan already achieved and intensive work under way on many others. Following the publication of the general scheme of this Bill last March, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth conducted pre-legislative scrutiny. I am grateful to the Chair, Deputy Funchion, and all of the members for their examination of the legislative proposals. I also appreciate the committee's acknowledging the features of the scheme which it welcomed, including the low burden of proof built into the design of the scheme and the moves beyond the commission of investigation's recommendations, particularly regarding including in the scheme survivors who were resident in the institutions post 1973. This low burden of proof has been achieved by basing the approach to the scheme on time spent in an institution.

I carefully considered the committee's recommendations. I believe the Bill represents a considerable improvement on the general scheme published last March. I have been able to incorporate some of the committee's recommendations in the Bill. Some other recommendations are being considered as part of the design and operational roll-out of the scheme itself, while the intent of some others is being achieved through the broader action plan. As recommended by the committee, the scheme has been designed with regard to human rights and equality principles. The proposals were informed by an advisory paper prepared by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission as well as by the public consultation process undertaken by OAK.

The recommendations that the administration of the scheme should be underscored by independence also feature in the Bill.

The office of the chief deciding officer will function as part of my Department in order to benefit from its corporate structures and to allow for a quicker establishment of the scheme. However, the Bill provides that the chief deciding officer will be independent in the performance of his or her functions. Furthermore, recourse to an independent appeals process is also provided for in the Bill.

With regard to the recommended expansion of the scheme to cover additional institutions, the Bill provides for the list of institutions in Schedule 1 to be expanded if it were to come to light that an institution fulfilled a similar function with regard to single women and their children as the 14 mother and baby institutions for which the State had a regulatory or inspection function. One of the pre-legislative scrutiny recommendations called for survivors to be provided with funded legal aid at all stages of engaging with the scheme. The Bill makes provision for applicants to be financially supported in obtaining legal services in two circumstances, namely, where an affidavit is required and where they wish to seek legal advice at the point of accepting a payment under the scheme and, thus, signing a legal waiver. It is important to note that the scheme will adopt a non-adversarial approach and applicants will not be required to bring forward evidence of abuse suffered. Applicants will be supported in making an application to the scheme and throughout that process.

On the recommendation to increase the payment amounts under the scheme, I have improved the overall approach to the payment rates by introducing more refined bands. This will benefit applicants, particularly where they would have been at the upper end of a given annual band under the original proposals. I have also introduced into the Bill that periods of temporary absence of up to 180 days can be included when calculating the total duration of a person's time in a relevant institution and their corresponding financial payment. This recognises that many mothers and children spent time outside an institution, for example, as a result of a hospital stay. The inclusion of such periods of temporary absences will also have the effect of increasing the payment amounts which some applicants may be entitled to.

There was another cohort of recommendations which are not directly reflected in the Bill but which are being incorporated in the design and operational roll-out of the scheme. When the scheme is operational, a comprehensive communications campaign will be undertaken both in Ireland and abroad. My officials are currently working on the overall communications strategy for the scheme. The recommendation that a stakeholder advisory group should be established is also being taken on board as part of the design and roll-out of the scheme, with plans in development to put in place a stakeholder reference group. Under action 1 of the Government's action plan, work is also under way on the development of a new structure to support wider stakeholder engagement.

This brings me on to a number of recommendations where the intent is being achieved through the broader action plan. For example, in terms of the use of sensitive and appropriate language, researchers from the University of Galway, funded by my Department, have been working on a project aiming to highlight the stigmatising and labelling language that has been used in the past, and to provide guidance as to how to address this issue. With regard to the role of local authorities in assisting survivors, I continue to liaise with the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage on how survivors can be better supported. Counselling support is available to all survivors and former residents of mother and baby and county home institutions through the national counselling service in the HSE. It is free of charge, including out-of-hours support, and those who identify themselves as survivors of the institutions are prioritised for the next available counselling space.

In the context of the action plan, I want to address the sentiments expressed by those who feel excluded from redress because their circumstances are not covered by the payment scheme. I stress again that it is through the action plan that the Government is delivering the most inclusive response possible to the suffering experienced by so many who have been hurt by Ireland's legacy in this area. The scheme is one element of that plan and can only deliver a limited amount. Following deliberations on the design of the scheme, it was decided that a general payment, based on time spent in the institution, was the best option in order to provide for a non-adversarial approach to delivering the scheme. It is not a perfect solution but it means applicants will not have to bring forward evidence of abuse, harm or mistreatment in order to benefit from the scheme. This approach, unfortunately, does not cater for the circumstances of people who were boarded. Given their very individual experiences, they would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The action plan includes other measures that will provide support and assistance to those who were boarded out as children, including access to birth and early life information as part of the Birth Information and Tracing Act 2022, and the provision of an ex-gratia payment to reimburse anyone who was boarded out and had to pay inheritance taxes for farms they inherited from their foster parents. Furthermore, funding of €330,000 has been provided for specialist therapeutic counselling services to persons who were boarded out or placed at nurse as children. Those who were boarded out after having spent more than six months in a mother and baby or county institution will of course be able to apply to the payment scheme for the time spent in that institution.

With regard to children who spent less than six months in an institution and were adopted or otherwise separated from their birth family, the overwhelming priority need expressed is for access to records. The action plan responds to their needs through the recently enacted Birth Information and Tracing Act 2022. From 3 October, statutory Information and tracing services under the Act opened, guaranteeing people access to their birth and early life information. In the first two weeks, over 4,000 applications have been received under the Act. The Government's proposals for the scheme mean financial payments will be made to an estimated 34,000 people and a form of enhanced medical card will be provided to an estimated 19,000 people who were resident in mother and baby and county home institutions, at a value of approximately €800 million. These proposals go significantly beyond the recommendations of the commission of investigation, under which an estimated 6,500 people would have been eligible for a financial payment, at an estimated cost of €400 million. This will be the largest scheme of its kind in the history of the State in terms of beneficiaries, recognising the scale of the impact of mother and baby institutions on Irish society.

I will now outline the key parts of the Bill as initiated. Part 1 provides for a number of preliminary matters including commencement and the payment of expenses for the administration of the Act and the making of regulations and orders. Part 1 also provides for the relevant definitions. A key definition is that of "relevant person", encompassing a person who was resident as a child or a mother, or both, in one of the institutions listed in Schedule 1, and, therefore, eligible to apply for the scheme.

Part 2 provides for the establishment of the scheme and its duration, guaranteeing that all applications received before the closing date of the scheme will be processed. The scheme will be administered through the office of the chief deciding officer of the mother and baby institutions payment scheme, which will be situated in my Department. The chief deciding officer will be independent in the performance of their functions relating to the scheme. In order that the scheme may open as quickly as possible, this approach allows for the office to draw on my Department's existing infrastructure and resources to support the fastest possible establishment of the scheme, including the administrative structures required to operate it. The chief deciding officer will be provided with staff to assist with the operation of the scheme, and there is potential to contract third-party support to undertake some of the more straightforward processing tasks. The office of the chief deciding officer will widely promote awareness of the scheme, in Ireland and abroad, and will prepare an annual report, which I will lay before each House of the Oireachtas.

Part 3 provides for all aspects of the application, determination and notification processes for applicants and also for the arrangements in respect of internal reviews and the independent appeals process, where an applicant is not happy with a determination on their application.

The benefits available to applicants under the scheme are a general payment, a work-related payment, an enhanced medical card and a health support payment. The overall determination of an applicant's eligibility for benefits under the scheme hinges on his or her period of residence in one of the institutions. The general and work-related payment amounts will rise based on time spent in one of the institutions. Regarding eligibility for the health support payment, applicants who are deemed eligible for a form of enhanced medical card under the scheme but who live outside of Ireland may choose to take the card or opt instead to receive a once-off health support payment of €3,000, in recognition of their individual health needs.

The Bill sets out what people need to do to make an application to the scheme. One application can cover time spent in different institutions, so only one application to the scheme is required. However, if an additional institution is added to Schedule 1, a person will be entitled to make a further application in respect of that institution. Certain applications can be prioritised, having regard to the age or health status of the applicant, if the chief deciding officer considers it is in the interest of fairness and efficiency to do so. To support the assessment of applications, the Bill provides for the office of the chief deciding officer to be able to search the copy of the commission of investigation's archive held by my Department, to establish the applicant's period of residency in a relevant institution. The office of the chief deciding officer will also have the authority to request relevant information from an "information source", where they hold relevant records that are not held in the archive. In the limited circumstances where records may not be available, the Bill allows for affidavits to be sought at the application stage.

Where relevant, a formal offer of payment will issue to an applicant and he or she will have six months to accept or reject the offer. Applicants will also have the right to request a review of the determination and an independent appeal. The period of six months will give applicants enough time to avail of independent legal advice on the legal waiver. The waiver will only be signed at the point where the applicant accepts an offer of a payment under the scheme in order that the applicant will have full knowledge of what they are being offered prior to signing. It is the intention to make a capped amount of financial support available to applicants for the purposes of obtaining independent legal advice. A contribution to legal costs will also be provided in cases where an applicant makes an affidavit to apply to the scheme.

Applicants who were resident in a relevant institution for a minimum of six months will be eligible for a form of enhanced medical card. The card will enable the holder to access the services specified in the Bill free of charge. Applicants who are deemed eligible for a medical card but live outside of the State may opt to receive a once-off payment of €3,000 instead of the card.

The Bill provides that a person can apply on behalf of a relevant person in specified circumstances. An application may also be made for a general payment and-or work-related payment on behalf of a person who would have been eligible to apply but has died since the date of the State apology, that is, since 13 January 2021.

Part 4 contains provisions on a range of ancillary matters. These include: the power to make regulations; the power to prescribe a person as an information source where the person holds relevant records; the power of those administering the scheme to process personal data and special categories of personal data for the purposes of fulfilling functions set out in the Bill; a prohibition on the disclosure of confidential information by those administering the scheme; and the service of documents and penalties. In addition, it provides that general payments and work-related payments made under the scheme are exempt from income tax and capital gains and capital acquisitions tax. Part 4 also provides for the carrying out of a review of the operation of the scheme after two years and again at the end of the scheme. It also provides that an additional institution may be added to the Schedule of eligible institutions by way of a ministerial order.

I reiterate my appreciation to survivors and their families for their ongoing patience as Government continues to work through these complex issues. Recognising the importance of delivering this scheme for survivors, I hope to be able to bring the Bill swiftly through both Houses of the Oireachtas. In parallel with the legislation, the significant work required to establish the scheme is under way. I assure survivors that we are doing everything in our power to deliver this scheme as quickly as possible. Subject to the legislation being passed and enacted, and the administrative structures being established, the scheme will open for applications as soon as possible in 2023.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

The Minister was left with an awful lot of the legacy issues. The cynical part of me thinks that other Ministers did not mind leaving stacks of files on their desk for somebody else to deal with. I acknowledge that the Minister has dealt with many of the outstanding issues relating to the mother and baby institutions. We have not always agreed and, in fact, we have disagreed on many of the issues but I acknowledge that he has at least tried to push on with them, unlike previous Ministers who held the post before him. I will make my comments in that spirit.

Sometimes there is so much to say that I do not even know where to start and other times, when we talk about this topic, I seem to say the same thing time and again. Much of it goes back to the terrible patriarchal mindset at the heart of all of this. First, there is the history of the institutions and how or why they were even allowed to exist. Second, there is the timeline of the commission of investigation report. The report was leaked and we called for a Garda investigation. An internal investigation was launched but, as far as I am aware, we have no information on what exactly happened. Third, there is the report itself. I will never forget sitting upstairs waiting for and reading the report because I was dismayed from the very start. I tried to see how it would go, given there was a lot in it, but the dismissive tone and the disingenuous language was a disaster. That is saying something.

The authors of the report may not have done so but everybody else understood the torture, deprivation and humiliation that was hidden behind the walls of those institutions. Some 15%, which is the equivalent of 9,000 babies, of all babies born into one of these institutions died which tells its own sad and horrific story. There were calls from some quarters to repudiate the report. The Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth invited the authors of the report to come before it who of course declined. RTÉ made a programme on illegal adoptions, and I believe a report is due from Dr. Niall Muldoon on that matter. We already know how much the people who were born into or sent to these institutions were failed and then they had all of this. Professor Daly, to add insult to injury, spoke at an event in Oxford. The authors of the report were again asked to come before the committee to give some explanation of their findings but they totally refused all of the invitations.

While I acknowledge the Birth Information and Tracing Act is a step forward for many people, there is still that mandatory information session, which brings me back to the patriarchal mindset. It is as though people who were born into or sent to the institutions have to be constantly told that they may not be able for all of this. The we-know-best attitude is inherent to all of this. We had judicial cases some of which were successful. In contrast, we had the Institutional Burials Bill, which was actually a very good example of legislation being done the right way. Stuff that was discussed in pre-legislative scrutiny was taken on board and some, while not all, of the amendments on Committee Stage were taken on board. That is in contrast to this legislation and the Birth Information and Tracing Act.

I know nobody in this House needs a history of the situation, but it is important to realise how, time and again, people have been failed by the State, religious organisations and the system. Unfortunately, this generation of politicians will be added to that failure if we do not properly take this on board, make proper recommendations and ensure that it is not just words on a page or nodding heads of sympathy. It is terrible what happened and we can all apologise but we have to see proper action. By proper action, I mean much of the stuff that was in the OAK consultation report, the process of which survivors were very happy.

I will never understand the six-month rule. I cannot understand how someone who was five months in an institution can be totally left out. I totally disagree with that and we will bring forward amendments on Committee Stage. I do not like the inclusion of a legal waiver. It goes back to the mindset of "we know best" and there is an issue of trust. I also know of some legal firms that have written to survivors since the report was published to tell them that they may need legal assistance. Such firms should take a good long look at themselves because, in some cases, they are just trying to get people to sign up and to get money from very vulnerable people. Those firms know exactly who they are and they should stop.

The exclusion of those who were boarded out is horrific. The Minister made reference to it. He is aware of the two brothers to whom Deputy Pa Daly regularly refers, Mr. James Sugrue and his brother, who were among those who were boarded out. The Minister said in his speech that they would be able to apply if they were in an institution for six months. It does not take into account that in most cases they were used as slaves in the situation. Has the list of institutions in the mother and baby investigation report been expanded?

Human rights experts spoke at length about systemic racism faced by mixed-race people resident in the institutions, much of which does not seem to have been taken on board.

Some 58,208 people passed through one of the mother and baby institutions. That is the total number of people who should be supported by means of any proposed redress scheme. That brings me to the pharmaceutical companies and religious orders that have come out and publicly apologised. They have acknowledged their role in all this, yet they seem to think they have no part to play when it comes to writing a cheque. That is absolutely disgusting in light of the amount of wealth the religious organisations and the pharmaceutical companies own. They should be pursued strongly. We should be looking to see if there is any way we can pursue them through the courts because if somebody acknowledges and apologises for something publicly, surely they are saying they have a very strong role to play. It is disgusting to think the companies felt it was okay to use people as human guinea pigs and that they can just walk away from their responsibilities now.

I again acknowledge everyone who has ever contacted me or whom I have met. Much of the time when we acknowledge the courage and bravery of people it is meant sincerely, but when the women who were sent to these institutions come in they often feel they need to tell us all their very personal medical stuff, just because they are trying to access medical services. That is totally and utterly wrong. Much of the time these are very personal situations people might not even want to discuss with their own family. They are coming in to a total stranger because they are so desperate to get medical services and are being left on waiting lists. I hope that whatever medical card is being proposed will be sufficient to ensure that these people are not just going to be joining the back of a three-, four-, five- or six-year waiting list and that they will get the services they need. This applies to the women who were left to give birth in the most horrific of circumstances and who have never been the same physically since. I feel strongly about that, and about all of it, but the religious organisations and the pharmaceutical companies aspect really bothers me. I hope they are watching today, though they probably do not care. I hope we can go after them in some way, shape or form and that they will be made pay their fair share of everything. As we all know, there is no price that can be put on this but the very first thing we do should not be to exclude people. Everybody needs to be included in this scheme. I refer to the OAK recommendations. Survivors trusted the OAK process and anyone I spoke to was - "happy" is not the word - satisfied with it. They felt they were listened to and that they were given time. Those are the recommendations we should be looking at for the redress.

Deputy Martin Browne

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the mother and baby institutions redress scheme. I begin by acknowledging all those who contacted Members across this House to outline their views and concerns on the provisions of the Bill. Before I address several matters of concern I have with the Bill, I must state that time is a crucial factor here. It has been said to me on numerous occasions that valuable time has been allowed go by while those who fell victim to these institutions awaited justice. That did not just happen in the decades gone by because it is also the case with the delays leading up to the report of the commission of investigation and the processes that have been mired in controversy since. The people who have been seeking justice, redress and answers for their entire lives have been let down by these delays. They do not have the luxury of being able to wait for answers or to be afforded justice.

For decades, the women who were incarcerated in mother and baby homes were shut away from society; they were hidden, silenced and worked. Their children were in many cases subjected to a separation from their mothers that defies belief. They were often treated as commodities to be traded. These women and children were treated like very few others in society. Their pursuit of truth, justice and their own histories has been beset by obstacles. These include records that are missing or were destroyed - deliberately or otherwise - accounts misrepresented, as we have seen in recent times, or accounts not being given the context they deserved. Over the years these people looked on as they were spoken about by those who did not share the horrors they endured or spend their lives piecing back together the missing parts of those lives. I want us to recognise this because we must ensure the issues we are discussing are framed by that knowledge and the consequences of those experiences.

Unfortunately, while I believe the Minister is committed to doing right by survivors of these institutions, the Bill falls short in a number of areas. I begin with the deeply flawed decision to exclude from redress anybody who was in one of these institutions for fewer than 180 days as a child. I have been told that survivors are feeling "sold out" by this - that is the term that was used. That is not the response we want to hear when seeking to make amends to a person for a lifetime of being wronged. Imagine a person who was in a mother and baby home for six months or fewer. Does the Minister think their sense of loss and the gaps that may remain in their personal histories are any less than those of people who were in one of those places for two years or more? A stay of three to six months was typical at Sean Ross Abbey, so that is where the feeling of being sold out comes from. Does the Minister think nobody who was born in an institution covered by this Bill, or who was born in one and stayed there for fewer than six months before they were moved on or exported, should have that recognised? Are their potential needs any less? Are the emotional impact of what or who they lost or the overall consequences for them any less? I cannot see the sense in all of this. There is not even a medical card. I can only put it down to an effort to limit liability to reduce costs. I am reluctant to say that but it is the only answer I can come up with. When talking about the survivors of these institutions we must talk about them all. They all had an element of self-determination taken away from them by a system that dominated their direction in life and it deeply affected their lives from that time on. This is a fundamental flaw the Minister must see. The nuns of Sean Ross Abbey got the money for their transactions regardless, yet an arbitrary bar is set for survivors. Deep down, the Minister knows this is profoundly wrong. I urge him to revise this or accept an amendment to address it.

This shortcoming also affects those who were boarded out as children. They were in many cases workhorses for others. It is unjust in the extreme. Furthermore, the legal waiver remains, so we see more restrictions on who qualifies for this scheme. This effectively removes people's ability to exercise their right to justice and pursue legal action while at the same time the religious orders that sought to profit from their inhumane methods and treatment of women and children are afforded all the time they want to further delay justice for survivors. Where are they now? I will tell the Minister. They are again holding back from the survivors. They are again abandoning them, wasting their valuable time and running down the clock. They are pinching every penny, just as they kept women and children at subsistence levels throughout their time in these places. It is the same old story for survivors - different rules apply to them. They are left without while other parties, including the pharmaceutical companies, have a free hand to act as they please. The UN special rapporteur, its human rights committee and its human rights experts have all called for appropriate compensation, removal of legal waivers and for any scheme to address child victims of racial discrimination within Irish institutions. These calls are being largely ignored. I urge the Minister to address this, rethink some of the provisions in the Bill, to take a hard line in those negotiations and to get them wrapped up as soon as possible.

Earlier, I spoke of the obstacles survivors of these institutions had to overcome. I spoke of accounts being misrepresented or presented out of context. The elements of the Bill I have highlighted are representative of that, in a way. OAK was called on to consult survivors, many of whom had to add to their original testimonies as the commission of investigation misrepresented the original accounts, questioned their veracity or laid them aside. In much the same way, the recommendations obtained from the accounts repeatedly given by some survivors have been ignored in the Bill. Survivors engaged in good faith in many cases, relived the trauma they went through and yet their testimonies were either misrepresented or dismissed. Despite this, the request to appoint a human rights expert to examine testimony given to the commission of investigation has been refused. That is totally unacceptable. The lack of trust in the process that survivors have developed over the years must be addressed. The Minister has an opportunity to do this now. While I thank him for the attention he has given to the survivors of Sean Ross Abbey in my constituency, I strongly urge him not to leave this Bill as it is.

There are two further issues I wish to address. Survivors have numerous questions about the payments a select number will receive. Given the age of many survivors, there are concerns that if the processes involved are too onerous or lengthy, some may not live to receive those payments. What timescale can we expect? If a person passes away before receiving his or her entitlements, will they be passed on to the family?

I urge the Minister to see this debate as an opportunity to do what is right. On foot of my engagement with him, I am sure he wants to do what is right.

Whatever or whoever is holding him back, I urge him to resist and to bring sense and compassion into play. To echo Deputy Funchion, a massive push must be put on the religious orders and pharmaceutical companies to make payments, provide redress and give these survivors what they deserve.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

Last night, as I was sitting in my office, I tried to crystallise my thoughts around this debate. There is so much information for us to analyse that it is hard to encapsulate it within a reasonably short debate such as this. Nonetheless, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate.

We are fortunate as Deputies that there are many people outside this Chamber who are willing to provide us with excellent research and resources. As I sat in my office last night, I received an email containing a briefing paper on the Bill from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL. With the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's permission, I will read some of it into the record. For me, it crystallises all the issues and flaws that are inherent in this legislation. The ICCL paper states at the outset:

1. Survivors challenged the Final Report of the Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation in the High Court by arguing that the Commission failed to adhere to the legislation that established it, and that their rights under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached. A settlement was reached whereby the State consented to a declaration that the Commission acted in breach of statutory duty. A statement was also agreed which recognised that "survivors do not accept the accounts given in the Final Report... as a true and full reflection of the oral and documentary evidence they gave". This is followed by a list of 64 paragraphs which can no longer be relied on. The State has expressed that the Redress Scheme is a part of the measures being used in "responding to the report". ICCL is concerned that the Redress Scheme is therefore based on a report which the State itself agreed was flawed.

2. The Final Report omitted survivors' testimony and drew conclusions that do not align with survivors' testimony. For example:

a) There was "no evidence" that the women who gave birth were denied pain relief (Executive Summary, para. 245) and that there was "no evidence" [these are the words of the commission report] that at the time of adoption women thought "their consent was not full, free and informed" (Executive Summary, para. 254).

b) Mothers "were not 'incarcerated' in the strict meaning of the word"

c) Certain evidence was "merely the product of a creative writing class".

This is the atmosphere in which we are seeking to promulgate this legislation. The ICCL's report is a damning one. On the proposed independent review, it states:

On 2 June 2021, it was reported that the vast majority of evidence given by survivors, those who gave evidence to the Confidential Committee, was effectively not considered for the Final Report. This led to the proposal from the Department of Children of a review of survivor testimony. However, [the Minister] recently announced [and this was quoted in the Irish Examiner, thanks to the work of Elaine Loughlin and Conall Ó Fátharta] that this would not proceed due to "significant legal complexities". These have not been adequately identified.

Problems with the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Bill 2022

4. [The Bill] omits over 40% of survivors, including children who spent less than six months in an institution and those who were boarded out. The six-month requirement is arbitrary and permits no consideration of context: a child resident for 180 days receives €12,500. A child resident for 179 days receives ... [nothing at all].

5. The Bill makes it more difficult for survivors who resided in an institution at a young age to claim compensation. Whereas the General Scheme of the Bill [which the committee considered] allowed child survivors to claim a payment if they were, or had reasonable grounds for suspecting they were, residents ... the Bill only allows a child to claim who "was resident" [very specific language] ... For children who may have no documentary evidence of their residence, this sets the standard of proof too high.

6. The Bill provides no compensation for forced and illegal adoptions, forced labour, unlawful vaccine trials...

Deputy Funchion has referred to the vaccine trials that took place, an issue that has been raised by all Opposition Members. We want clarity in respect of GSK. We have been very adamant about that. It looks to me like GSK has been let off the hook. Respectfully, the Minister and the State have not adequately addressed the issue of the vaccine trials. It is a sword of Damocles hanging over us and it needs to be addressed.

6. The Bill provides no compensation for forced and illegal adoptions, forced labour, unlawful vaccine trials, abuse as an adopted child, and death. Nor does the Bill provide compensation for discrimination whether based on gender, disability or race. The latter issue of systemic racism in institutions was recently highlighted as a serious gap in this Bill by UN Special Rapporteurs.

7. The term "work-related payment" used by the Bill ... does not adequately describe lived experiences. It should properly be described as "forced labour".

8. The levels of payment provided by the Bill in respect of the "work-related payment" are inadequate. They must correspond to the wages that survivors should have earned at the time and be linked to the average industrial wage.

9. The Bill does not count a "temporary absence" of 180 days or more ... There is no room for context. A survivor may have excellent reasons for having left the institution and returning. For example, a survivor may have escaped for 181 days before being caught and returned. That period of 181 days could not reasonably be separated from their time in the institution.

This is the language we are dealing with. This is the context in which the Bill is being put before us. This is how serious it is.

10. The enhanced medical card proposed in the General Scheme has been replaced by health services without charge and is available for anyone resident for 180 days ... This residency requirement is arbitrary and should be removed.

We are all ad idem in the Opposition on that point. The timeframe of zero to six months is just too arbitrary.

11. Survivors resident outside of Ireland are entitled to a payment of €3000 instead of health services without charge ... This figure is far too low and is not reflective of the value of the services available to those receiving health services without charge.

12. Survivors have called specifically for trauma-informed counselling and therapies. This is not provided for in the Bill.

13. There is no requirement in the Bill that those charged to administer the Redress Scheme must be qualified for the position and be subject to ongoing training in international human rights law and trauma-informed responses to gross human rights violations.

The Minister says this legislation is grounded in human rights law. That is open to interpretation and critique. The idea of putting deciding officers within the Department itself is something we will deal with on Committee Stage because it requires further interrogation. We in the Labour Party are not convinced it is the right way to go.

17. Additionally, the Bill states that a survivor will be entitled to no compensation where they have "received an award from a court or settlement in respect of an action arising out of any circumstances relating to the same period of residence in the institution" ... This provision does not take into account the possibility of a Court awarding a survivor a lower amount of compensation than they would receive under the Bill. Moreover, court proceedings may not necessarily be directed towards the State, yet the Bill precludes such an individual from later claiming compensation from the State.

Again, this is a serious flaw in the Bill and we will seek to amend it. I anticipate, however, that our amendments will be ruled out of order because of the rules that apply in regard to such amendments.

We asked the Minister to reconsider that very provision in section 27 of the Bill, paragraph 3. I contend that will have to be dealt with. Payment rates under Head 11 should be amended to remedy the failure to offer payments to all survivors and to compensate adequately those who received payments in line with, inter alia, the current personal injuries guidelines and other comparable schemes. This includes PTSD payments. Under the guidelines moderate PTSD equates to compensation of between €10,000 and €35,000 whereas serious PTSD equates to €35,000 to €80,000. The Bill does not require that free legal aid be made available to all applicants in circumstances where legal aid is likely to be required in applying for compensation, reviewing or appealing a determination and in swearing an affidavit that could be required of them. This should be provided for. That is the position of the Irish Council of Civil Liberties on this Bill, all of which I agree with. It is a perfect crystallisation of the issues that we are dealing with here.

In regard to our attempts to amend the Bill to reflect the thoughts and aspirations of the many people who have been in contact with us we will now seek to put forward an amendment in regard to seeking a report on the operation of the scheme. In putting forward that amendment we will seek to highlight the flaws in this Bill on the basis that we will seek the report asking whether and to what extent persons engaged in the management, administration or operation of relevant institutions should be permitted or required to contribute to the cost of making payments under this Act because that highlights the flaw in regard to parties which were not party to the redress scheme, and again GSK looms large in our thinking there; whether the 180 days’ residence requirement provided for in section 13(1) and section 13(4) should be amended or repealed; whether the scheme should be extended to make provision for recognising persons who were boarded out as children, as relevant persons; whether there is a need to provide for additional institutions in Schedule 1 of the Bill, because we feel it is not an all-encompassing Bill in that regard; and whether the requirement imposed on applicants by section 27(3) should be removed.

Section 27(3) says: "An applicant who receives a payment under subsection 1(a) or the personal representative of a person in respect of whom a payment was made under subsection 1 shall not institute civil proceedings and shall discontinue any other proceedings instituted by or on behalf of the applicant against a public body that arise out of the same or substantially the same circumstances as the circumstances to which the application concerned related." That is basically saying that if you get money under this scheme you have no recourse to any other; that in order to sign the bottom line to get your money, redress and compensation you are disbarring yourself from any further action on the same issue. That is essentially what, as I understand it, the Minister is saying and has prescribed in this legislation. The Irish Council of Civil Liberties, as I have already said, is speaking to this point. A number of solicitors have been in touch with us who are concerned about the perception that this Bill creates, that people will not have access to the legal advice to which every citizen is entitled on any matter of law before them, particularly in circumstances such as this where people will need advocates. As Deputies we will act as advocates for people. However, I am not a lawyer. There will be times when people will want to interface and may seek to take further action, as I think should be their right, in civil proceedings. They should not be proscribed from doing that.

I will speak specifically to the human rights element of this in regard to the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC. The Minister speaks to the fact that he took on board, if I am interpreting him correctly, the paper that was published by the IHREC. I will quote again from the IHREC. Its advisory paper stated: "the Commission of Investigation report was limited in terms of the institutions" that it covered. I have said that already. In the past, the exclusion of certain institutions in Ireland has created a barrier to seeking recourse to any meaningful reparation for survivors, despite having been subjected to serious harm. The paper continues:

Recent research from Queen’s University identifies the difficulties of relying on previous investigations to inform the scope of reparation’s schemes and which resulted in excluding certain institutions:

“Refusing redress for these victims or basing redress on the same assumptions and availability of evidence already collected through investigations, creates a hierarchy of victims, silencing those at other institutions and compromising the efficacy… of the redress scheme overall.”

That is a glaring point that has not been addressed in this Bill. We cannot have that hierarchy. For too long on this island there has been a hierarchy of victims. We can have no more of that, I respectfully contend. Mr. Spicer, a solicitor who corresponded with us, stated that the Minister quite worryingly seems to indicate that it would be sufficient to have the staff in his own Department handle the many thousands of inquiries. This is not only impractical in terms of the logistical capabilities of having a handful of staff handling tens of thousands of calls. It lacks basic independence and it would be entirely inappropriate for the Minister’s own staff to be advising service users on their rights, commenting on whether they should apply to the scheme, helping our community to weigh up the pros and cons of the scheme or anything else that the community needs help with in terms of putting their applications together.

Given the experience of survivors in regard to the commission’s report, those people, who we represent, are now expected to interface with the Minister’s Department and to have confidence in that process. They do not have confidence. They want to be able to deal with somebody who is verifiably independent. Mr. Spicer continued to state that the community cannot be led with their hands held by the State to accept this redress without independent legal advice forming part of the decision-making process should the applicants so wish. This scheme has to operate with complete transparency and fairness. Part of that process is the right to consult with a chosen and trusted legal representative not only on the scheme itself but also in consideration of the individual’s own lived experiences and balancing that with the provisions in the scheme. Applicants therefore must feel that they can voice their concerns and be given feedback in a confidential setting with their trusted legal representative.

I understand the Minister’s genuine attempt to formulate a scheme here but the legislation before us as it is constituted does not deal adequately with a whole raft of issues that remain outstanding. I hope the Minister will be of a mind to introduce amendments to his own legislation on Committee Stage which would deal particularly with section 27 and section 3 in regard to the right to further civil proceedings if an applicant so wishes, where they are deemed to have already received compensation or redress. I also believe strongly that if the issue of the zero to six months is not dealt with then the legislation disregards so many people. Previously I asked of the Minister, on the record of the House, what analysis had the Minister and his Department officials done on the number of people in the zero and six months group who could potentially form part of this scheme and whether that was quantifiable.

If it was, what would the additional cost of that have been to the scheme? There has been a weight of evidence given to us on this already, which the Minister will be well aware of. It is too arbitrary to exclude from the scheme people who were resident for less than six months. Again, I am respectfully asking the Minister to please reconsider that. It seems that the reason for it is that perhaps some analysis has been done on the cost of this and it was such that the Government decided it would be too costly to add that onto the €800 million budget line that has already been assigned to this. Therefore, it has taken an arbitrary decision. We will revisit many of these issues on Committee Stage.

Deputy Emer Higgins

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this legislation, which has been long awaited by many people. It follows years of activism by survivors of mother and baby home institutions to get the recognition and redress they so badly deserve. The critical need for this legislation has been recognised by all political parties, all stakeholders and all groups. I welcome the work the Minister and his Department have done on this legislation and on making it such a key priority for this Government.

We have heard the testimonies and the horror stories. That is evidence of Ireland's long and dark history of illegal and forced adoptions, and we must shine a light on that dark corner of Irish history. Babies were taken from their mother's arms, children grew up with no knowledge of their origins or family history, and young women were cruelly institutionalised. For so many of those women, it is not history; it is their present. Still today, they are enduring the trauma they suffered at the hands of the church and the State at such an early stage in life. For many people, that suffering has had a profound impact on their health, their well-being, their ability to work and their ability to lead an ordinary life.

I do not know what financial price can be put on that level of trauma. How do we repay a woman who had her child taken from her and illegally adopted, perhaps never to be seen again? How do we repay a child born into such harrowing circumstances, who grew up without all of the information they should have had about who they are? I do not know how we quantify that. In reality, we know that no amount of financial redress will ever remedy the unspeakable damage and abuse that so many women and children suffered. Even the largest sum of money would pale into insignificance.

However, I know this legislation aims to help through the financial redress and access to medical cards and the support that these women and their children born into institutions will get. We know that many women who were institutionalised in mother and baby homes are growing older. They have lived long lives and some have poor health. We simply cannot make them wait any longer for financial redress. That is why it is critical we ensure redress is given as soon as possible. These women and their children, who are mostly adults now, need our support.

This legislation will mean that all mothers who spent time in a mother and baby institution will receive financial redress, with the amount of redress increasing based on their length of stay. All children who spent six months or more in an institution will receive financial redress based on their length of stay. An additional work-related payment for women resident in certain institutions for more than three months who undertook what might be termed commercial work will come into play. An enhanced medical card will be available to everybody who was resident in a mother and baby home or county home institution for six months or more.

I take issue with the exclusion of those boarded out and children born in mother and baby homes who spent less than six months in these institutions. I know that in every scheme and every policy we have to set parameters, but I find that six-month parameter hard to justify.

I was recently contacted by someone born in a mother and baby home who spent less than six months there. This person’s life has been greatly impacted by that cruel entry into the world, and they are so hurt that they will not be included in this scheme. They feel excluded again. All I can do for that person is agree with them and take this opportunity to urge the Minister to please keep this aspect of the legislation under review.

I commend the Minister and the State on taking responsibility for the provision of redress. However, I also want to put on the record that it is so disappointing and so frustrating that religious institutions will not be contributing towards redress. Religious organisations that have apologised and accepted their responsibility for the unforgivable trauma and abuse inflicted on mothers and babies will not be contributing to the redress. That is angering for many people.

I know the Minister’s intentions in this Bill are only good. The Minister and his Department have not been set an easy task, but it is one they must fulfil. I thank him for his leadership and dedication to ensuring that happens.

I would like to end with a line from correspondence sent to me just this week by a survivor, who wrote, “Protecting, valuing and recognising trauma of survivors and victims now, properly and compassionately would heal some pain.” Perhaps nothing was done to stop it happening then, but something can be done to ease the damage now.

Deputy Patricia Ryan

I have had many emails and phone calls from survivors of mother and baby homes over recent weeks. The survivors are understandably angry about some of the provisions of this Bill. While we in Sinn Féin support the introduction of a redress scheme for survivors of mother and baby and county homes, it must be one that it is inclusive and based on human rights and equality standards.

There are serious concerns in regard to the exclusion of children who were resident in these homes for less than six months. People feel it has been deliberately formulated to exclude approximately 24,000 survivors, mostly consisting of these children who were resident for less than six months, and that the Government’s plan is all about reducing costs and liability. It should be about creating equality, fairness and ensuring all survivors are adequately compensated for any time spent in one of these horrific institutions.

Earlier this week, I spoke to a man who was born in one of these institutions. He spent a short time there before being adopted to a family in the west of Ireland, where he had a happy childhood. He learned in later life that he was adopted. When he went looking for his mother, he found she had died the previous year. He has since connected with her wider family, but feels cheated out of the chance to know his mother. He rightly blames the State, which was complicit in his forced adoption. I also spoke to this man’s son, who told me feels an intergenerational sense of loss, shame and anger.

The consequences of the State’s action and inaction run deep. In 2013, former Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, apologised to the Magdalen laundries survivors. A couple of sentences stuck out in his speech. He said the value of any sincere apology is always found in the actions that follow. He went on to say that the last thing survivors need is inadequate apologies from more men in positions of power. They deserve justice, genuine contrition from the church and State and complete and unreserved redress. Those were his words, not mine. That is what they deserve. However, this Bill falls far short. It is a further abuse of the survivors and their families who have already suffered too much.

Will the Minister please show some compassion and widen the scheme, increase the compensation and remove the legal waiver, which the UN has also called for? Give these people what they deserve. They have suffered enough and it is time to act now.

Deputy Holly Cairns

The scale of abuse, terror and cruelty experienced by thousands of women, children and infants in mother and baby homes is almost unimaginable. This includes unexplained infant deaths, disappeared children, illegal adoptions, incarceration, forced labour, illegal medical experimentation and emotional, physical and sexual abuse. Both the church and State have responsibility for these abuses and their legacy. The religious orders and pharmaceutical companies must be held to account and pay their share.

The extent of harm cannot be quantified. There is the stigma that followed people all their lives, the psychological impact of losing the parent-child bond, the weight of never knowing what happened to your child and the intergenerational trauma.

No redress scheme could adequately compensate survivors but the Government's proposed scheme is shamefully minimal, exclusionary and insulting. Despite the wishes of survivors and the recommendations of UN human rights bodies, it seems the Minister is determined to push ahead with deeply deficient and even offensive reparation. With no evidence basis, and purposely going against clinical experts and survivors, people who spent less than six months in homes as children are excluded. People who suffered illegal adoptions or medical trials or were boarded out will get nothing. More than 24,000 people will not be eligible. Those whom the Minister deems worthy of compensation will receive as little as €5,000. For many people, it is not about the money but that cannot be used as a defence for such an insultingly low figure.

This disgraceful scheme is being done in the name of the Irish people, yet I have not met one person who is not outraged by the Minister's plans. There is still time to do the right thing, that is, to enable all survivors to access redress and to hold the church and pharmaceutical companies to account. It is difficult to catalogue the defects in the scheme but its overarching philosophy is to award as little as possible and to grant that to as few people as possible. This principle is obvious in the Bill but some of the particulars were reported by Jennifer Bray in The Irish Times earlier this year. Documents from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform warned that extending the scheme would, "create a significant precedent regarding claims from many others in society who may feel they are also entitled to some form of redress or recognition payment based on any length of residency or attendance in an institution or other setting". That is the reality behind this scheme; the true priorities. It is clear the Minister either has a lack of will or capacity to overrule those priorities. There is a general feeling that he was left holding the bag but is he willing to put his name to this? As he seems to have decided it is good enough to stand over, he must be held accountable.

Another tactic used is to claim the Minister is going beyond the deeply flawed commission's report. It has obvious and painful inaccuracies that basically absolve the church and State of responsibility, blaming society instead. This is blatantly untrue and it is disgraceful that the Government is willing to cling to this as the definitive record. The Minister initially committed to providing an independent review of the testimony given to the commission. In August, survivors learned from the Irish Examiner that he was abandoning that plan. In December last year, we had the High Court declaration that the commission had wrongly denied eight survivors their statutory right to comment on many draft findings. The commission is unwilling to explain its methodology and findings at Oireachtas committees, as it knows full well that its conduct and report is indefensible. Its recommendations are arbitrary, ill-founded and punitive. When the Minister says he is going beyond the commission’s recommendations, I hope he realises how hollow and disrespectful those words are.

There are several major issues in the Bill that ignore the wishes of survivors, the views of human rights experts and the recommendations of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. First, there is the purposeful exclusion of whole categories of survivors. This is manifested in two ways primarily: people who as children spent less than six months in institutions; and then disregarding whole categories of abuse, such as forced family separation and illegal medical trials. The disregard for those who were born and spent time in mother and baby homes is highly immoral. It is disgusting that people are being denied any form of recognition because of what are, frankly, ignorant and hurtful statements from the Minister and officials in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Ignoring all psychological and developmental evidence, the Minister claimed that "children who were in for less than six months would not have been aware of their experiences, would have been too young to remember their experiences". Besides being a reprehensible statement in this context, it is also factually inaccurate. That the Minister for children is disregarding the central role of the first six months of a child's life for their development is wrong on so many levels. When the Minister announced the scheme last year, more than 30 clinical experts wrote to him stating that childhood trauma has the greatest impact early on in childhood. These experts pointed out that there is no threshold of time linked to this trauma and, as a result, having an arbitrary period of six months' exposure is simply that, arbitrary. All children who were subjected to this cruel system deserve acknowledgement and redress. That is the bare minimum. Officials in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform dismissed the experiences and trauma of this group of survivors because they would likely have gone on to live "comfortable and contented lives". Not only is that just made up, it is wholly ignorant of all we know about mother and baby homes and the trauma and stigma that followed people all their lives. The exclusion is based on a dehumanising position that shows this Government has no interest in evidence or lived experience.

The disregard for the wishes of survivors further demonstrates this point. The Minister commissioned the Oak report. He presented it as a chance for survivors to have their voices heard in shaping the redress scheme. It is especially callous to ask survivors for their input, only for him to then reject it. Survivors participated in good faith and shared their experiences and opinions, only for the Minister to ignore them. That is unforgivable. The consultation was just a tick-box exercise for the Minister and the Department. The lives and experiences of survivors are just a bureaucratic exercise to be thrown aside. I will quote sections of the report to ensure they are on the Dáil record and so that the people can understand how the Minister is simply ignoring survivors. The executive summary states:

Many survivors stated that the recommendations were inappropriate, that eligibility criteria were arbitrary and lacked an acceptance of the realities and conditions in the homes. ... The largest proportion of written submissions stated that all mothers and babies who resided in mother and baby homes should be eligible for redress, regardless of the duration or year of their stay and regardless of whether children were accompanied or unaccompanied by their mothers.

On the same page of the report, there is a direct quote from a survivor:

I think it is disingenuous of the government to place an arbitrary six months redress restriction on residents. From a neurobiological perspective the damage done to an infant is catastrophic. It is a cop-out not to include human rights. The State has failed us...

It is in there in black and white. There is no ambiguity. The survivors are clear. Clinicians are clear. The evidence is clear. The recommendation of the children’s committee was very strong on this issue, based on our engagement with survivors, their advocates and human rights experts. We required that:

The six-month residency requirement must be removed. Anyone who was resident in one of the institutions should be entitled to a payment, regardless of time spent therein.

When I and others put forward amendments to remove this deeply insulting exclusion, will the Minister defend it each time? Will he claim giving people access to their personal information is all they wanted every time? More worrying, will he use the money message excuse to rule us out of order? The six-month exclusion has to go. It should never have been there in the first place.

The second way the Government is excluding survivors is by dismissing abuses, most prominently forced family separation and illegal adoptions, the practice of being boarded out, forced labour and illegal medical trials. Here, the Government has cobbled together different and equally pathetic excuses to deny any form of restitution for the harm caused by the State, the church and pharmaceutical companies. The flawed commission’s findings are used as a rationale. Individuals are being told that the experimentation to which they never gave their consent - one the most basic tenets of medical science - is a matter for them to take up with the pharmaceutical companies, as if the church and State did not facilitate them

This group must be included in the scheme and the State should pursue the pharmaceutical giants.

Adopted people and the survivors of forced family separation, one of the worst crimes imaginable, have been neglected in this process. They were not included in the terms of the commission, meaning there is no official recognition and they have yet to receive a proper State apology.  Recently in the Seanad the Minister gave an attempt at an apology, with a handful of survivors invited. The whole incident revealed the Government’s priorities rather than meaningfully recognising the abuses and crimes involved.

The OAK report, as I mentioned, stressed that all survivors should be included. The principle incorporates these groups but in case there was any doubt, it is specifically stated in the executive summary that:

eligibility would be further extended to include those subjected to coercive family separation outside institutions or who were illegally adopted/fostered/boarded out without adequate supervision and vetting. To do otherwise...would undermine the legitimacy of the scheme and fail to deliver a survivor centred response focused on the nature and effects of the harm suffered by the survivors.

The Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, aware of the Minister’s treatment of survivors, firmly supported them in its recommendation that the scheme should recognise all rights violations and all harms perpetrated in the institutional and family separation system, including but not limited to, those identified by the OAK report. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, has strongly called for a broadening of the scheme as recognition for the range and scale of abuses in these State-run or State-financed institutions. In addition, there is a mountain of recommendations from UN human rights experts that the Government is ignoring, hoping that the average person is not aware of them. I can only list some of the many findings. A joint letter from six UN special rapporteurs in November 2021 said that as illegal adoption may come within the legal definition of trafficking in persons, it is critical that the redress scheme "establishes a process for effective investigations and ensures access to effective remedies to all victims, without exception".  In July, the UN Human Rights Committee called for the state to recognise fully the violation of human rights of all victims in these institutions and provide redress. In September, UN human rights experts called for redress for victims of racial discrimination and systemic racism in Irish childcare institutions. This point is important and often overlooked. Misogyny, classism, racism and other forms of discrimination were inherent in these cruel systems. Women and children from poorer families were often treated worst, children with mixed heritages were abused and Travellers and disabled people were also targeted.

  An important part of transitional justice is recognition. It is truth telling. It is not just memorialisation and it needs to be in the legislation. The IHREC was clear on this, as were others. The legislation should outline the range of abuses and human rights violations. These should be listed and every survivor should be compensated. The scale of people currently excluded from the scheme is shocking and the amount of abuse not recognised is shameful.

The next major issue is the disgracefully low compensation. We know for some survivors it is not about money but about acknowledgment and some help with living costs and medical expenses. All the UN bodies have called for proper compensation. The Oireachtas children's committee, based on engagements with survivors and others, has called for an increase in the payment amounts, for Health Amendment Act, HAA, medical cards, tailored, trauma-informed counselling supports and for legal aid to enable survivors to seek independent advice at every stage. Some survivors will get as little as €5,000 which is truly pathetic. While no form of redress could adequately compensate survivors, that cannot be used as an excuse to grant paltry amounts. It is a pathetic excuse and the Minister knows it.

A legal waiver remains under the terms of the general payment or work-related payment in section 26. The UN Human Rights Committee, UN human rights experts and the children's committee have all called for the removal of legal waivers. Those who apply for redress should not be gagged or restricted from taking separate legal action. Again, it is an attempt to control survivors, to prevent them from even thinking of seeking more redress than the small amounts the Minister has decided they can get.

Another significant issue is the lack of interim payments. Again, this is another matter survivors were very clear on. The OAK report states that the most commonly held view in relation to financial recognition was that "an immediate interim ex-gratia, common experience payment, should be paid as urgently as possible". This was particularly the case bearing in mind the older age profile of survivors who it was thought should be prioritised, as well as those suffering serious illness or other extreme circumstances. Not only was an interim payments system the obvious and right thing to do, the Minister has had this report since May last year, so for 17 months he has done nothing on this vital issue. Unfortunately, the cold reality is that some people have already passed away and never received any form of compensation due to this inaction.

  Finally, there is the matter of accountability. This is something that survivors and the public want and that UN committees have asked for. Why are the Church and pharmaceutical companies not being held accountable? The Minister is apparently in negotiations with religious orders to contribute to the cost of redress. This should not be a subject for negotiation. The Government should be seizing assets. These orders profited from crimes including forced labour and child trafficking. We have laws to rightly seize the proceeds of illegality. If a gang carried out these crimes there would be no hesitation but because it is the Church, Government parties would not dare. The conduct of these so-called Christian organisations is shameful. If the religious orders had any credibility they would hand over assets in contrition. Their hypocrisy is obvious. Furthermore, the Government is making no effort to hold the pharmaceutical companies accountable. Never mind any form of legal culpability, we have basically given up on the idea that anyone will ever be prosecuted for these crimes.

  It is clear that from its conception this scheme was not designed with the preferences of survivors or human rights standards in mind. It was shaped by financial concerns and the Government’s philosophy of doing just enough to look good and just enough for the headlines. This Bill intentionally excludes over 20,000 survivors. It willfully ignores human rights violations and crimes and it ignores the Minister's own consultation and numerous UN human rights bodies. It is frankly disgraceful and insulting. It is another stain on how Ireland has treated a group of people who have suffered countless abuses, people who have suffered enough. The Minister knows it and his colleagues know it. This is clear from the number of Government speaking slots that no one turns up for. Many were eager to speak on the eviction ban and energy Bill but where are they today? There has been just one Government speaker, who criticised much of the Bill. Last week there were no Government speakers. They know this is a hollow, offensive scheme but will they vote for it? I am calling for a vote of conscience on this controversial Bill. I know many backbenchers are deeply uncomfortable with it. If the Minister is so confident he is doing the right thing, he should allow a free vote.

Many survivors have spoken out already while others, understandably, are just too tired. They have been worn down by the State and by successive Governments for years, including this one. Along with others on the Opposition benches, I will do what I can. I will be putting forward amendments to address the most egregious aspects of this Bill at every stage. I have no doubt the Minister will disregard them, just as he has disregarded survivors and human rights experts but at least the will of the people will be presented.  People want justice for survivors. They want a proper scheme that recognises the harm caused. The Government certainly does not represent Irish society on this. It will be on the record that at least there were some public representatives who spoke up. It is not too late. The decision is the Minister's.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

We all know that this State has a very long history. We had a society that was built around not giving adequate powers or protections to women and, beyond that, actually oppressing them. I accept that a significant number of legacy issues have fallen into the Minister's in-tray. I assume that others did not want to deal with them. We are at the point of redress and we all accept and support the need for a redress scheme, particularly for those who spent time in mother and baby homes. It is fair to say we are dealing with a cohort of people who have been absolutely failed over many years. Even in latter times we have heard about the testimonies not considered, the leaks and all the other issues which just heap pain upon pain. The fact is that we are dealing with a huge cohort of people who feel they have been betrayed and left to one side by the State. The fact is that a considerable number of people - I think it is in or around 24,000, probably more - now definitely feel they are getting absolutely no element of even delayed justice.

To put this into a general framework, on the back of two motions by Louth county councillors, namely, Sinn Féin's Joanna Byrne, as well as John Sheridan, Denis Cahalane wrote up a piece about Louth County Council's historic responsibility or involvement in the mother and baby homes. I will read out some pieces from the report.

Women from County Louth were placed in Mother and Baby homes throughout the country. It is impossible to state accurately how many of the mothers and children in homes were from County Louth. ... Information on admission practice is incomplete. Women would have been referred by clergy, medical and nursing personnel, public officials or family members.

That was done with the women having absolutely no element of power in their grasp. The report continues: "Many pregnancies arose from incest, statutory rape, or other exploitative situations." We have to accept that. We have to accept that a huge number of women were absolutely powerless. All did nothing wrong. Many found themselves in exploitative situations because of the huge power differential that was in society. The great and the good at best did nothing to improve that set of circumstances. We are looking to address this.

It is fair to say that the idea of removing from the scheme those people who were resident for less than six months in these homes just does not wash. We all accept that these people went through a huge level of pain. That is before we start talking about the failures by the pharmaceutical companies and the clergy. The Minister has the power to deliver what is a modicum of justice for these people, who have been too long without it. We all need him to do that.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

It is significant that quite a number of Deputies have ignored their speaking slots in respect of such an important topic. I will leave that at that.

The Minister said in his speech: "The scheme will recognise the time spent and the harsh conditions, emotional abuse and other forms of mistreatment, stigma and trauma experienced by people while resident in a mother and baby or county home institution." What is missing there is "some people". The scheme will recognise some damage experienced in some institutions and will give some money. That is very important. Let us look at the context of what we are speaking about. I am glad I have extra time in my slot to elaborate a little on this. Let us see where we have come from.

I think it was in 2012 that Catherine Corless, local human rights activist and historian, started looking into her family tree and began to discover various things. We are extremely grateful to her. That is ten years ago if my sums are right. I will come back to her.

Prior to that, we had many indications from many different places that something was very wrong. I come from a city of institutions, Galway city. The Magdalen laundry was within a stone's throw of my house. We had the Lenaboy industrial school for girls, and for boys we had St. Joseph's Industrial School - brothers and sisters. I am aware of that personally: sisters here, brothers there, never to see each other again but within less than a half a mile from each other. Then, going out to Connemara, we had another industrial school for boys, and in Clifden we had the industrial school for girls. I have not touched on the mother and baby homes in Tuam and Loughrea. Galway was a city and a county of institutions, like other counties all over the country. That was part of the architecture of containment, the phrase used so eloquently by Professor Smith from Boston University, as I understand it.

The other day I read out a piece in recognition of Ireland's first Constitution. Now, 100 years later, we are looking back on a century of containment, mostly of women but also of boys and girls and men. Every institution was full. For what purpose? For a so-called morality. Various people in society functioned as a morality police. We talk about Iran today. I have a great understanding of the morality police in Iran because that is what we had in Ireland, done very subtly, when it came to women. We knew from 1997's Banished Babies, we knew from the work of Mary Raftery and we knew from so many people. Most of all, the Departments, not the Minister personally, knew because the Departments have the key to all the data that are there that tell the story.

Into this, then, came Catherine Corless, courageous, determined, fearless. She went forward and identified the inappropriate burials of 798 children in Tuam. Let us look at what she faced. She tried and she tried and she tried. The response from the nuns, through Terry Prone, I have read out before. She talked about the letter she got. Let me be specific. Catherine Corless published her article, "The Home", in Journal of the Old Tuam Society in 2012. It detailed the very poor conditions in the institutions and so on. Not much attention was paid to that article. Then she went forward and, between 2011 and 2013, at her own expense, got 798 death records. Denise McNamara, in The Connacht Tribune, published an article on 13 February 2014 titled "Campaign to recognise 800 dead Tuam babies", which begins: "Were it not for the tenacity of a housewife who has spent ten years researching her own family tree, the names of 798 children buried in an unmarked grave ... would be lost for eternity." Then we had the Irish Daily Mail's story about a mass septic tank grave containing up to 800 babies and so on. What was the response of the nuns at that point? Terry Prone said on behalf of the Bon Secours Sisters to a person who was making a documentary:

Your letter was sent on to me by the Provincial of the Irish Bon Secours congregation with instructions that I should help you. I'm not sure how I can. Let me explain. When the "O My God - mass grave in West of Ireland" broke in an English-owned paper (the Mail) it surprised the hell out of everybody, not least the Sisters of Bon Secours in Ireland, none of whom had ever worked in Tuam and most of whom had never heard of it.

I ask the House to listen to what followed:

If you come here, you'll find no mass grave, no evidence that children were ever so buried, and a local police force casting their eyes to heaven and saying "Yeah, a few bones were found - but this was an area where Famine victims were buried."

I read that out to set the scene of what Catherine Corless and the survivors were facing at that point.

Then, of course, we had international attention. Eventually, we got Enda Kenny and the commission of inquiry was set up in February 2015. It was set up with limited terms of reference. It was established on 20 February. Interestingly, there were then seven interim reports, one of which was not published until the final report was published but with no explanation ever as to why it was not published. That was interesting and significant as well. Then we had the report submitted to the Minister on 30 October 2020 but which did not see the light of day. Then it was published on 12 January with extensive coverage in a Sunday paper; a leak. Part of that leak included comments from the Taoiseach.

Can you imagine that, particularly when the need for trust was of the essence? No survivor had a copy. We then had a webinar and were repeatedly told they had copies, but there were no copies. They were to download a 3,000-page document. Then there was to be a report into the leak but this never came to fruition. Different Deputies asked questions and were told that like water, the leak had broadened out. We got all of the reports.

The fifth interim report is particularly significant. You come back to the commission of investigation where the caveat was put in respect of the survivors' testimony to the effect that it was contaminated. They were the 550 courageous people who came forward. There was a caveat from the three wise people of the commission of investigation telling us to beware because the evidence might be contaminated. On page 8 of the fifth interim report, it is stated:

The Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary who owned and ran these institutions provided the Commission with an affidavit about burials generally and specifically about the Castlepollard and Sean Ross child burials but very little evidence was provided to support the statements in it. The affidavit was, in many respects, speculative, inaccurate and misleading.

This is repeated on page 22. That is the commission telling us that the affidavit was speculative, inaccurate and misleading. I did not see that repeated anywhere in the final report. The Minister might correct me if it was. The commission raises the issue of Tuam and Bessborough, which distinguish themselves by having no records of burials. The commission does rise to pose the question. The more difficult question to answer is why the children were buried in such an inappropriate manner. The commission goes through whether chambers were used for sewage and feels obliged to clarify that there were not. However, it did not highlight the fact that the bodies were wrapped and placed in sewage chambers. The commission points out that a concrete lid had to be lifted so that the bodies of those babies could be put down.

I do not know if the Minister has read these reports but they are there in black and white. The fifth interim report contains the phrase "speculative, inaccurate and misleading". There is no caveat in the final report with regard to their evidence. Instead, a premium is put on the accuracy of their evidence.

There is also a little on the sale of bodies to the medical department in Galway. The report gives the price for which the bodies were sold and how the porters sold them and the doctors received them. This matter is worth looking at. However, I will stay focused on what we are doing today. The Minister tells us this involves human rights. This has nothing to do with human rights. This has to do with a cold, calculated decision about costs. That is what this is about.

I am not going to waste my time saying that the Minister has done a good job and that I believe in his bona fides because at this point. A very faulty Bill is before us and it is concerned with cost containment instead of justice. I find it insulting to be told that it is based on human rights principles.

This is probably my last time to have such time to talk about this matter. My comments will be blunt - not on my behalf but on behalf of Catherine Corless and all the brave people who have tried to educate Deputies, taken cases to court and succeeded in getting an appendix to the report of the commission of investigation setting out that they had to go to court. There were more courageous women in the background waiting to see it. There was then a settlement, which is what is in the library. Very courageous people came forward such as Clann and Máiréad Enright and her colleagues. I could name them all. Catriona Crowe is another. All of them helped to educate Deputies, as well as us operating on the basis of our own gut feeling and work to come forward to say that this is the time to get it right and make language mean something because language has meant nothing. There was no forced incarceration, there were no illegal adoptions and there was no evidence of the mothers' consent not being given. This is what is being said. We listened to 550 people and we did not take on board what they said.

In addition to the leak, we had the debacle regarding the recordings. The Minister can shake his head or he can listen and learn like we all can. I am not an expert, but I am certainly an expert having read the material and made myself aware of what we are being told and what people have suffered. I would say I am an expert on that at this point - only on that part. I am not an expert on everything else. We had the leak and then the debacle over the recorded material that was not recorded.

We now have this Bill and we leave out how many people. We put the emphasis on the inclusion of approximately 34,000 people with 19,000 qualifying for an enhanced medical card for which, I am sure, they should be very grateful really. The number of people who spent longer than six months is 14,507. The number of people who spent less than six months is 24,149 so we have excluded the vast majority of children who were in mother and baby homes on spurious grounds that they were tabula rasa, nothing affected them and at the end of six months, they were still tabula rasa. The Minister has done this despite the fact that the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has set out that this is wrong along with the ICCL and 34 clinicians working in the area of childhood trauma. It is simply not based on scientific evidence. It is not based on our experience as mothers and fathers. The Minister has excluded all of those children. In another speech, he talked about how he cannot monetise the harm done. That is exactly what he has done. That is exactly what he is standing over - the monetisation of suffering in the narrowest way possible.

The Minister also excluded children who were boarded out. We are going to ignore them as well even though the interdepartmental group looked at the number, which was 4,757. All of these numbers are very specific and are easy to deal with in terms of a proper, just and fair redress scheme based on human rights. The Minister has ignored people who were illegally adopted. Does he remember the Marion Reynolds report that was never discussed in the Dáil? Ms Reynolds asked for her name to be taken off that report. If I am wrong, and as I have done repeatedly, I ask the Minister to correct me. I understand that the author asked for her name to be removed from the report because of changes made by the Minister and Department. That report was a scoping exercise to identify the extent of illegal adoptions. It has never been dealt with.

There is no redress for systematic racism despite UN human rights experts highlighting this in correspondence. The Minister knows this - as recently as 23 September 2022. It is discriminatory. It does not include all relevant institutions. Remember that the commission of investigation chose a sample number of county homes and the major mother and baby homes. Not all homes were chosen. The Minister is proceeding with that, although there is the option to include. He is completely ignoring the bonding. I will refer to an email that I will not read out, although I have been given permission. Of three siblings, two were adopted at nine months so they will come under the scheme while a third sister who was born a few years later and spent less than nine months in an institution will not. Imagine that family trying to explain this to each other. The two who were adopted at nine months will come under the scheme while the third sister, who got out before six months, will not.

On work-related payments, those involved did not work. It was forced labour. The Minister knows that and I know it. Based on all the submissions from human rights groups and survivors' groups and organisations, let us for the first time place human rights at the heart of this legislation. They asked for four basic principles of human rights to be enshrined in order that the redress will be in context. I looked at the Title. It does not enshrine the basic principles of human rights, which I do not have time to go into but which have already been read out by Deputy Sherlock with regard to the ICCL.

Why am I saying all of this? In 2003, the Residential Institutions Redress Board was set up. There was a waiver, and anyone who disclosed information about an award - I include myself in this regard because I was a barrister at the time - was considered to have committed an offence. That criminal offence is still in place.

Fast forward then to 2013 and the Magdalene redress scheme. Let us remember the Ombudsman's report in this regard, and that we should learn from it. This is basically what he said. He also referred to the maladministration. Are these words remembered? He stated, "In order to ensure that any future restorative justice or redress schemes benefit from the learning from the operation of this and other schemes" there must be guidance. Those documents must be open, accountable and exist. Nothing has been learned.

I was involved with regard to the redress scheme in 2003. Moving forward, there was the Magdalene redress scheme in 2013. This current scheme will probably become operational in 2023. Something like this, therefore, has occurred every ten years in the span of three decades. I am referring to the 30 years that I am taking out of a span of 100 years. What have we learned? We are still persisting with the waiver. I pay tribute to the Minister for removing the silence regarding the amount of money the people concerned are going to get. This is progress. Can you imagine, though, that it has taken us some 20 years to take this provision out. The waiver is still being persisted with despite the UN Committee Against Torture having found that the waivers imposed upon Elizabeth Coppin in the context of the Residential Institutions Redress Board and Magdalen ex gratia restorative schemes were unenforceable. The UN committee affirmed the requirements incumbent on the State, but I do not have time to go into detail. It is worth looking at that judgment in the context of the waiver being retained. Deputies have received numerous emails on this matter. One asked why St. Mura's Nursery, Fahan, Lifford, was not included in the scheme. I am sure we are going to get many more queries. The aspect of boarding out has been ignored, as I said, as has the waiver.

Having learned nothing from Caranua, and that debacle and the misnaming of it as a "new friend", a new body is being set up. Another office is being set up within the Minister's office. It will not be independent. We have no idea as to how applications will be made. Will it be an oral affidavit or a story? There will be a review, which I welcome. It will be carried out by the deciding officer. Then there will be an appeal. Once this is heard, and just to ensure that the person concerned has no sense of the independence of the process, the deciding officer gets to tell the person the result of the appeal. Can you imagine that in terms of a lack of insight?

We have also had no update on the negotiations with the religious orders or those involving the pharmaceutical companies. The legal aid being provided is minimal in the context of two aspects, namely, the waiver and the affidavit. The affidavit will arise where the chief deciding officer is unhappy with the documentation and requests an affidavit. Another question on the documentation concerns the chief deciding officer having access to the archives to make a decision. When he or she gets those documents, will they be made available to the applicants? I ask this because it would be essential if justice were to be done.

Turning to the matter of outstanding correspondence with the Department, for a year to two I have been requesting for all the documentation that exists between the Government, the Department and the commission of investigation. I tried to work with the Department to narrow down the scope, but I still have received no reply.

Debate adjourned.