Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Bill 2022: Second Stage

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

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

Today, I am bringing the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Bill 2022 before this House. This Bill, when enacted, will allow the Government to deliver a statutory scheme that will provide financial payments and a form of enhanced medical card to thousands of mother and baby and county home institution survivors.

I look forward to working with Senators to discuss the Bill further over the coming weeks, and I extend my thanks to those Senators who were on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and contributed to the pre-legislative scrutiny report. I know how important this Bill is to survivors and I am wholly committed to delivering this scheme as quickly as possible.

The payment scheme is a key measure in the Government’s action plan for survivors and former residents of mother and baby and county home institutions, which aims to provide a holistic response to the most pressing needs of survivors. Progressing the action plan, which includes commitments across a number of key areas, has been a key priority for me. We have delivered the Birth Information and Tracing Act 2022, which has already provided access to birth and early life information to more than 3,500 people. We have passed the Institutional Burials Act 2022, which enables us to afford the children interred in Tuam the dignity and respect they deserve. Works will commence at that site later this year.

Last November, the Government approved a process now under way to appoint a special advocate for survivors, whose remit will include all survivors of historical institutional trauma. The Government has also approved high-level proposals for a national centre for research and remembrance, to be located on the site of the former Magdalen laundry on Seán McDermott Street in Dublin city centre. This centre will stand as a national memorial and site of conscience to honour equally all of those who were resident in mother and baby and county home institutions, industrial schools, reformatories, Magdalen laundries and related institutions.

Moving to this Bill, the Government’s proposals for the payment scheme mean that 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. This will be provided at a cost of approximately €800 million. This will be the largest scheme of its kind in the history of the State in terms of beneficiaries, recognising the huge number of individuals who were impacted by these institutions. The scheme will recognise the time spent and the harsh conditions, emotional abuse and all other forms of mistreatment, stigma, and trauma that was experienced by people while they were resident in these institutions.

The Government recognises, however, that no amount of financial payment or service provision 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 institutions in Ireland.

Following the publication of the general scheme of this Bill in March of last year, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth conducted pre-legislative scrutiny. I am grateful to the members of that committee for its robust examination of the legislative proposals. I also appreciate the committee's acknowledgment of 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 the inclusion in the scheme of 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 report published by the committee in July last year, and its recommendations, as the Bill was being drafted.

Overall, the published Bill represents an improvement on the general scheme, and further improvements were made during the process of debate in the Dáil. I have been able to incorporate some of the committee’s recommendations into the Bill. The scheme has been designed to be non-adversarial and straightforward for applicants. Applicants will not be required to bring forward evidence of abuse or retell their story in order to be able to apply to this scheme.

With regard to the recommended expansion of the scheme to cover additional institutions that were not investigated by the commission of investigation, 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 did the 14 mother and baby institutions. I can also confirm, in response to another recommendation arising from pre-legislative scrutiny, that the Bill provides for applicants to be financially supported in obtaining legal services in two circumstances, namely, where an affidavit is required and if they wish to seek legal advice at the point of accepting a payment under the scheme and, thus, signing a legal waiver.

Beyond this, it is important to note that the scheme will, as I have stated, adopt a non-adversarial approach and applicants will not be required to bring forward evidence of abuse suffered. As applicants will be supported in making an application to the scheme and throughout that process, it will not be necessary to obtain independent legal advice to make an application to or engage with the scheme at any point in the process.

Regarding the accessibility of the scheme and the language used around it, my officials are working hard on making the scheme, associated communications and the application process as accessible as possible.

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 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 to provide direction and feedback on communications and application material to the scheme.

I will now outline the key parts of the Bill, as passed by Dáil Éireann. Part 1 provides for a number of preliminary matters, which include commencement; the payment of expenses for the administration of the Act; and the making of regulations and orders. Part 1 also provides for definitions relevant to the Bill. A key definition is that of a “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 is, 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 by an independent executive office, the office of the chief deciding officer of the mother and baby institutions payment scheme, which will be situated in my Department.

The office of the chief deciding officer will widely promote awareness of the scheme, in Ireland and abroad. It will prepare an annual report, which I will lay before each House of the Oireachtas. While it has always been the intention to undertake a public awareness campaign both in Ireland and abroad, due to the large number of survivors living abroad, this was made explicit in the Bill on foot of an Opposition amendment tabled on Committee Stage in the Dáil.

Part 2 also provides for the dissolution of the office of the chief deciding officer on a date to be appointed after the scheme ends. After dissolution day, the powers and functions of the chief deciding officer will transfer to the Minister. In addition, any records in the possession of the chief deciding officer will be deposited with the Minister and become departmental records to be managed in accordance with the National Archives Act 1986. The records will also be managed in accordance with the Data Protection Acts and the general data protection regulation, GDPR.

Part 3 provides for all aspects of the application, determination and notification processes for applicants. It also provides for the arrangements in respect of internal reviews and the independent appeals process, where an applicant is not happy with a determination on his or her 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 is grounded in his or her period of residence in one of the institutions at Schedule 1 to the Bill. The general and work-related payment amounts rise based on time spent in one of the institutions. The payment rates for these two financial payments are set out in Schedule 2.

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, or in institutions as either a mother or a child or both, 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.

The Bill allows for the chief deciding officer to afford priority to applications, having regard to the age or state of health of the applicant, if he or she considers it is in the interest of fairness 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 and database, held by my Department, to establish an applicant’s period of residency in a relevant institution. This will facilitate a more user-friendly approach for applicants in terms of engaging with the scheme. The chief deciding officer will also have the authority to request relevant information from an “information source”, where they hold relevant institutional records that are not held in the commission’s archive and database.

In the limited circumstances where records may not be available, the Bill allows for affidavits to be sought at application stage by the chief deciding officer. Applicants will be provided with support towards the cost of providing an affidavit where they are requested to do so in the scheme.

A formal notice of determination will issue to applicants in respect of their application and, where relevant, a formal offer will issue in respect of each of the benefits under the scheme. An applicant will have six months to accept or reject this offer. Applicants will also have the right to request a review of the determination, and should send this request within 60 days of receiving the notice of determination.

The period of six months is provided to give applicants enough time to avail of all independent legal advice, if they wish, in relation to the legal waiver. The waiver would only be signed at the point where the applicant accepts an offer of a payment, under the scheme, so the applicant will have full knowledge of what he or she is being offered prior to signing.

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 an enhanced 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 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, so since 13 January 2021.

Part 4 contains provisions on a range of ancillary matters. These include the power to do the following - to make regulations; to prescribe a person as an information source where they hold 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 penalties. In addition, Part 4 provides that general payments and work-related payments made under the scheme are exempt from income tax, capital gains tax and capital acquisitions tax.

Furthermore, Part 4 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 was agreed, following an Opposition amendment on Committee Stage in the Dáil, that these reviews would commence no later than six months after the two-year or end of scheme time periods. Part 4 also provides that an additional institution may be added to the schedule of eligible institutions by way of a ministerial order.

As I stated earlier, this legislation represents one part of the Government's wider response to the legacy of mother and baby institutions. All of us who have engaged with survivors know that they have different priorities. It is the responsibility of Government to seek to respond to all these needs and to ensure that the awful legacy of mother and baby institutions is fully remembered. This is why we passed the Birth Information and Tracing Act which provides, at long last, a legal right to birth information to thousands of adoptees. It is why we provide free counselling services to all those who passed through mother and baby institutions. It is why we passed legislation to ensure that this year we will see the site in Tuam excavated and the remains of the children buried there exhumed. It is why we supported memorials across the country. We have provided funding for educational bursaries. It is why we will have, on Seán McDermott Street, a sited memorialisation so that future generations will know the truth of what happened in these institutions in the 20th century.

I will conclude by reiterating my appreciation to survivors and their families for their ongoing patience as the Government continues to work to develop this scheme. I want to assure survivors that we are doing everything in our power to deliver this payment scheme as quickly as possible. Subject to the legislation being passed and enacted, and the administrative structures being in place, it is our hope that this scheme will open for applications this year.

I commend the Bill to the House.

An Cathaoirleach

I welcome to the Public Gallery Mr. Hugh O'Brien and friends who are here as guests of Deputy John Lahart. I think they have come from Chicago and Washington and they are very welcome to the House. I also welcome Ms Sheila O'Byrne Ryan who is here today for this very important and sensitive debate. I call on Senator Victor Boyhan.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I, too, welcome our guests in both sides of the Gallery. I also welcome the people who are tuned in online to listen to this debate.

As a memento I have with me a little docket or complementary slip from RTÉ, which is signed "A note from Mary Raftery". I want to acknowledge the enormous work that she did in advocating with her very well documented "States of Fear" documentary, to which I contributed and that leads me on to my next little story. I have a very extensive file on this issue because, as I said from the very outset in any of these debates, I was born in May 1961 and resided as a child right up to my teenage years in three residential institutions in Dublin, although I did have contact with both of my parents at various stages throughout and I am one of seven children. I did not know that I was one of seven children until many years later. Interestingly, after the "States of Fear" documentary, and an RTÉ documentary as part of a "Prime Time" programme - although it might have been a "Today Tonight" programme - in 1997 I received a letter from a now county councillor in Dublin City Council. I did not know it at the time but he became an assistant adviser to one of our Ministers in the previous Government. Strangely, today I met him as I walked down Grafton Street and I have not seen him since he left, having worked for former Minister of State, Finian McGrath, in the last Administration. So I have experienced a number of coincidences.

However, when I was going through the file I received today I found a copy of the original handwritten letter from this particular councillor. He thanked me for my contribution on 21 July 1997. That reminded me of what a long time it has been. Today I came out of AIB on Grafton Street and I met the same person, whom I had not seen for a number of years. I told him the story. I can confirm that this individual was very successful, if I can use that term, in litigation against the Christian Brothers. That is for another day and it is well documented in the press. I told him that I look forward to seeing him here next week. I just want to set the context for how long I have been engaged in this system.

I want to start on a positive note and congratulate the Minister. I have no doubt about his absolute commitment. He has been a reforming Minister. He has addressed many of the issues regarding redress. He has taken on a difficult brief. His successors have not been so successful. I know his heart is in the right place. I know he brought this legislation as far as he could bring it. I believe from my contacts around Leinster House, in government and other circles, that he would have liked to have done more. That is just speculation on my part but I am firmly of that belief. I will continue to say that inside and outside of this House. However, the Minister is in government and he has to work with other people in government. That is the reality. I say again that I am a pragmatist and I know how it all works. In the general context of this legislation, I think it is good and progressive but it simply does not go far enough and I will explain why.

Before I go any further I acknowledge the important work of the committee, which considered the mother and baby institutions payments scheme. I know some of the members are Members of this House. The committee made 21 recommendations. I will pick out a few of them. One was that the six-month residency requirement for children must be removed. That is what our committee said. Anyone who was a resident of the institutions should be entitled to a payment regardless of the time spent therein. Another recommendation was that the relevant religious congregations and organisations must contribute significant finances to the scheme fund. Another recommendation was that those boarded out should be included in the scheme and entitled to redress. That is a very special group of people, because they did not go through the proper procedures of adoption or fostering. It is true that some had good experiences but many had horrific experiences and they cannot be disregarded in this legislation that seeks redress for them. The committee also recommended that the waiver should be removed from the scheme. It went on to say that the Bill must embody the trauma informed response, including trauma, counselling and compensation that acknowledges the medical science-based evidence and aims to recognise the harm time in institutions was likely to cause. They are reasonable requests and for some reason, the Minister either does not have the support in government or of the political process to fulfil them. If I were a member of the committee, I would be exceptionally disappointed with that. That was their considered view. I have read the entire transcripts of their deliberations, and it is clear. I acknowledge the enormous commitment this committee has made, in terms of its comprehensive review, detail and sympathy. I have heard from many people who appeared before the committee and they were highly impressed. However, with that there was a high expectation that their recommendations would get over the line. Sadly, I am not in a position to say that. That is one group.

Yesterday I spoke about the significance of having the US President in this House last week holding up a beautiful baby full of hope and an abundance of love and joy. There was great excitement. It featured in all of our newspapers, and even in The New York Times. As I looked down the steps at the American President holding this child, it reminded me of the potential, the innocence and the vulnerability. I want to bring that back to those of us who have had children of our own, or who have close contacts with our nephews, nieces or whatever. We hear so much about precious life in these Houses but the life of a child is innocent and needs to be protected. The potential of every child is enormous. The Minister is telling this House, as he did the Dáil, that he is prepared to give limited redress to a mother who stayed one night in an institution. However, the Government is not in a position to give redress to an infant who may have been four months in an institution. Anyone in this House will know, whether they have had a child of not, whether they would have willingly allowed their child to be taken away from them. They would not. They would have killed for them, and rightly so. That is an important point to make. I also want to acknowledge Deputies Cairns, Boyd Barrett, Funchion and Connolly for their moving contributions in the Dáil, which the Minister of State will be familiar with. I sat in the Dáil and listened to them and they made very strong cases. They talked about the paternal bond, and the importance and significance. We all know the significance of children. We also know the outcomes that affect children for the rest of their lives.

To exclude them, therefore, is not acceptable. and cannot be allowed to stand. The other concern I raise today is the issue of drug trials and GlaxoSmithKline. I was in an institution where these drug trials took place. They are not in dispute. They are documented and published in the British Medical Journal, which is in the library in St. Stephen's Green. I was instrumental in an inquiry set up to investigate them, but which was subsequently wound down and never completed its work. This was under a module of the investigation into child abuse by Ms Justice Mary Laffoy. I have in front of me a letter from Brian Cowen on 4 December 1998, a letter signed by the current Tánaiste, Deputy Micheál Martin, on 26 October 2000, correspondence from Deputy Howlin and correspondence from Mary Harney, all of whom were Ministers for Health. That is how long this has been going on. To the credit of Deputy Micheál Martin, he came into both Houses and discussed this report into three clinical trials involving babies in children's institutions. Between 1960 and 1961, and 1970 and 1973 there were three sample cases of which the then State Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Kiely, was asked to commission a report. This report is in the Oireachtas Library. There are also substantial contributions in the Dáil records, which are printed and available to everyone, and are also in the Oireachtas Library. They refer to our children's right to bodily integrity.

We have to do something. My message is simple. I want to be positive. Seanad Éireann is a revising Chamber and I am asking the Minister and Government to work with the Seanad to pause this legislation. I know it is not on the schedule for next week. I would like us all to reflect on it. I would like us to pause this legislation and see if we can come together to address the issue of children who were subject to drug trials. It has to be validated. That is really important.

I will wrap up. According to the Irish Examiner, there were at least 13 vaccine trials carried out on more than 43,000 children in the State. That is 43,000 children in the State, and we are suggesting no redress for them. Finally, GlaxoSmithKline appears to be repeatedly pushing back against demands to pay reparations for the clinical trials in mother and baby institutions. I have a memorandum to hand stating that the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy Roderic O'Gorman, has urged the drug companies to accept corporate responsibility for the way these tests were carried out. I salute him for that but those are the basis of my concerns. It is positive legislation. Let us see if we can pause this legislation, just for a few weeks, to see if we can get other measures to address those short issues.

Senator Erin McGreehan

I welcome the Minister to the House. I also welcome Ms Sheila O'Byrne and all of the people in the Public Gallery. I am glad that we are finally debating this Bill. We know we have needed it for a long time. Redress is one of the ways in which we are dealing with the mother and baby home legacy. We know mother and baby homes represent a dark chapter in our history. Thousands of women and children were subjected to unimaginable suffering and cruelty. Those so-called homes were there to provide care and support for unwed mothers and their babies. However, over time it was discovered that these institutions were the absolute antithesis of that. They were not places of shelter. Mothers were subjected to extreme isolation, neglect and abuse and their children were sent away for forced adoption.

Many of those children were boarded out and, like Senator Boyhan, were subjected to vaccine trials and sent to industrial schools. They were subjected to severe and traumatic conditions. The publication of the report on the mother and baby homes in January 2021 was a watershed moment that brought to light the horrors that occurred in these institutions. It was a real moment of reckoning. Not all of us agreed with some of the conclusions but, as a body of work, it has to be looked at as that. It was not the end of the story. We all know of and have heard the testimony of women and of the adoptees about their times in these places. We are on a path to dealing with this horrific past. This Bill is an important step towards providing redress for survivors, to ensuring that those atrocities are never repeated, for the world to learn about the atrocities and for us to stand up and to take account of what this country did unto women and children. Very importantly, it is to enable the survivors to apply for that financial compensation. It is a matter of access to health and educational supports, as well as about that apology. The Bill takes steps to address the issue and to provide some form of compensation for those who have been affected by this desperate traumatic past.

The mother and baby home redress scheme legislation has been established to provide that compensation. No money or resources could ever adequately compensate - and we all agree with that - those who were harmed by the actions of these institutions. It is important to acknowledge the damage that was inflicted upon those who will never come back from that. That trauma will live on. Its legacy goes through many generations. The scheme is a crucial step towards acknowledging that harm.

It is essential that we educate ourselves and the public about the experience of those who have been impacted in order that we all understand why, what occurred and what we can do to support the survivors. The scheme, which was published in October 2022, was passed in February. It is a key commitment in the Government's action plan for survivors and former residents. It provides a holistic response to those pressing needs of survivors of institutions, including financial payments and health supports in the form of an enhanced medical card to eligible mother and baby and county home institutions survivors. The scheme also recognises the time spent in harsh conditions, emotional abuse and all other forms of mistreatment, as well as the stigma, trauma and experience of people while they were residents in these institutions. Financial payments will be made to an estimated 34,000 people. An enhanced medical card will be provided to 19,000 people. It will be provided at a cost of €800 million. While this is a huge amount of money and while it is a huge task, each one of those women is important and they are worthy of every single penny.

I also welcome what the Minister spoke about earlier, which was the special advocate for survivors. The financial package is only one part. There are many survivors the length and breadth of this country who are suffering in terrible housing conditions with terrible health conditions and who are alone. The tragedy of that is that so many of them die alone.

In regards to this financial package, I challenge the Minister and the Department to look at those organisations that are funded to support the survivors to make sure they look out for the survivors who have suffered this terrible trauma. Sadly, I have known of survivors who have died and who have no one to miss them. When they die alone in their homes, no one is there to raise an alarm. Sadly, many of these are deceased and then weeks, months or years later, they are found with no one to bury them. This special advocate needs to be there to support the applicants through everything, including through the application process. There also needs to be a body of supports in place to support the people who receive the money. Many of these people are highly vulnerable and financial coercion could happen. From the point they receive the money, there has to be a follow-through.

The mother and baby homes legislation is much needed. We know we can never fully compensate but we have to look at the survivors. Many of them are so vulnerable. I speak with them and they will never come forward publicly. I hear from them that they hear about people dying alone. If there is justice, if there is hope and if we as a country are to mind these people, we will have their applications and will know if they were successful. We will know who they are and where they are. Let us make sure that all those survivors who need our help, those vulnerable people, are highlighted as being vulnerable and are looked after through their last years. We should contemplate this legislation but there is an urgency that we pass this legislation and get those applications in because survivors are dying every single week and month. That redress is about an acknowledgement of their pain, their suffering and their loss. It is important that we follow through as quickly as possible to make sure that these women and children who are dealing with the trauma get the services, the care and the follow-through from the State, because the State neglected them in their younger years. Let us mind them through their elder years and through that suffering.

As there are so many survivors and institutions, I am glad there is not just a special advocate for mother and baby homes, but for all institutions. I have spoken with survivors of industrial schools and they are afraid to go into hospital because the hospital symbolises an institution. They do not go to places because of this symbol. They think, "If I go in there, I will never get out again". They cannot go back to that trauma. We have to look after them. We cannot have a survivor dying alone. We cannot have a survivor with no one to miss them and no one to bury them. If we did not give them dignity in life, we need to give them dignity. This also ties into our work on the Institutional Burials Act. We did not give them dignity in life but we will give them dignity and respect in death. We will start to bring that legacy for the survivors and make sure they are all looked after. That is my main ask today.

I know there are questions and on Committee Stage we will thrash out a lot of those issues and questions in relation to the Bill. However, today, I welcome that we are working on this Bill, that we will get this through the Stages in this House and that we will get the financial support to the women, to the people who really need it; to the mammies. I am thinking of the mammies who are listening in today. They are heartbroken and they are thinking of their babies, who they lost. I am thinking of Sheila, who is present today, who nursed babies, who looked after them and who lost them. That is who we need to look after. I am very glad we are at this point. I wish we could do much more. In reality, I would love to give them everything. We are giving a lot of help but I think we need to mind, to care, to acknowledge that pain and to make sure that no one is left out.

Senator Mary Seery Kearney

I am relieved that we are finally looking at the redress scheme being launched and that we are at this Stage in the legislation. I want to welcome Sheila, who is present today. There is no compensation that can mitigate the horror of the experience of women, both in the mother and baby homes and in the very cruel society of the time. There is also the stigma of being born in a mother and baby home. No matter what we say here, there is nothing that can compensate for that. We must do better, we must change and we must have a better place for women and children in our society today. I pay tribute to all the activism that has gone on for many years so that we would arrive at a place where there is something to acknowledge this shameful time in our history. I pay particular tribute to the Minister, who has been incredibly committed. He has spent long hours, many times these were way outside of office hours, listening, speaking and advocating. I am very grateful for that.

We are at this place. I have sat with survivors and considered their experience, including the experience of a child born in a mother and baby home who was then boarded out and perhaps went to school from that family. That family experience might have been good but such children went to school with a different surname. They were stigmatised and their origins known in the school. Eventually, in some instances, and I have spoken with mothers, some of these children then went on themselves to give birth in mother and baby homes. There will be people who will make applications to two different institutions regarding two different experiences that are inextricably linked.

This brings me back to the six-month piece. I very much rely on the scientific evidence of intrauterine trauma and the fact that a baby in the womb can suffer trauma due to the experiences and context of a parent. That trauma can lead to lifelong mental health issues, illnesses and addictions. There are lifelong consequences. Dr. Gabor Maté would say that a psychic wound leaves a scar and the scars are there for life. I question the basis of the six-month exclusion because if someone is born in a mother and baby home, he or she experiences the trauma of the woman. The heart of the redress scheme is acknowledging the trauma of those women in being there and that entire experience. If we know and acknowledge they were traumatised and had that societal quashing of who they are and their rights as people, then the baby in the womb was also traumatised. I really have difficulty with our cut-off point.

I also have difficulty with the religious orders not coming to the table and not conceding they have a bill to pay. I recently had a conversation with a man who worked as a taxi driver many years ago. He used to bring laundry to the Magdalen laundries and then bring it back to hotels and government premises. He also brought women and babies. The taxi drivers just did it and never really thought about what was happening at the time. These religious institutions received money from the State for all this. The very least they might do is come to the table. I find it very difficult to reconcile anyone who preached an allegedly Christian message with being so trenchant in their own lack regarding the requirement for a tangible forgiveness. It is also a terrible shame on GlaxoSmithKline. Unfortunately, I do not have the luxury of saying I will boycott its products for the rest of my life because I do not know when I will need them, but there should certainly be consideration on that level. It is a shame on that company. It is a billion dollar company. That it has not come to the table either is quite shocking and shameful.

I will return to the practicality of all this. The birth information tracing mechanisms are very good. It was very good legislation. However, I know people who applied last November and have been told it will be June at the very earliest before they will get any of their documentation, aside from the tracing. I understand all the elements that may be in that, including, to be fair, the gathering all that documentation in order to make sure. However, expectations were raised and they are not being delivered on. I would ask about that. I have got some of the survivors I am working with to put in a birth information and tracing request so they themselves will know their story. I am worried they knew they were in a particular institution but may have then been moved to an orphanage, which would disqualify them, and then maybe they were boarded out. To ascertain their own stories for themselves and to manage their expectations of this redress scheme, they put in applications for their documentation. The timing of receiving that documentation and being eligible for the window of opening to apply for the redress scheme mean it is important we are empathetic to the challenges of producing documentation. If such documentation cannot be produced for the survivors who are receiving their own records, then how can we know for sure the information being given, where people do not necessarily have significant information, is factually correct? We will end up with people coming back when they maybe get their information after an event. We need to be careful and be sure that people have all their information. I am treating it almost like a data request. In employment law, I always put in data requests. In this instance, it is to support people to manage their own concerns.

All of this is a chapter in our history. Over the past couple of years, sitting with survivors and hearing their stories, I can only think that we must act. We have taken so many of those 22 actions already. I am very pleased with that. Can we do better? I would like to think so, but we can continue to evolve in ensuring medical cards are delivered. Given the lifelong trauma that can be caused from the womb onwards, we should look at the enhanced medical card for those 24,000 people. I would also like to see the people excluded under the six-month limit get financial redress. I would like to see that happen but we must make sure, when this chapter eventually closes, that the dignity to which everyone is entitled has been accorded.

Acting Chairperson (Senator Diarmuid Wilson)

Senator Warfield has ten minutes. Does he wish to share his time with Senator Gavan?

Senator Fintan Warfield

Yes. It is five minutes each.

Acting Chairperson (Senator Diarmuid Wilson)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Fintan Warfield

I welcome the Minister to the House. I watched his speech from my office. To state the obvious, in all our work we should aim for equality and inclusion. I certainly do not need to tell this Minister that.

However, the Government is proposing to ignore some survivors. When we finally have the opportunity to acknowledge the hurt and trauma caused by forced family separation and loss of identity, the Government has instead made the decision to continue the kind of treatment we have seen of some survivors by successive governments. At worst, this scheme reduces cost and liability, and increases mistrust among survivors. It will create a hierarchy among those who have suffered so much. The Government states this will be the largest scheme of its kind in the history of the State as regards numbers of beneficiaries. That may be but it ignores the 24,000 people who live every day with the consequences of forced family separation and will be excluded from this scheme. It also ignores the thousands who survived abuse in adoption or boarded-out placements.

Even those who will receive redress under this scheme, will receive minimal compensation that is itself dependent on arbitrary factors. For example, a mother detained in an institution for up to three months will receive €5,000. In exchange for this, she will have to waive her legal right to sue the State. She and all mothers institutionalised for less than six months will also be denied an enhanced medical card, even if they were subjected to vaccine trials. Unless she was detained in the Tuam home or a county home, she will also be prohibited from claiming a work payment. Her child, having been separated from her before the age of six months, will also be excluded from the scheme.

The Government claims that access to identity and early life information is sufficient redress for those excluded from the scheme and yet, even this redress, such as it is, has not been forthcoming. Some 60% of those who have applied for their record since October are still waiting for a response. That is unacceptable. Not only is this unacceptable, it is contrary to the express wishes of survivors. Concerns raised by Dr. Niall Muldoon and the special rapporteur on child protection in a report commissioned by the Department are also not addressed. Arguably, this scheme flies in the face of calls from the UN special rapporteur, the UN Human Rights Committee and numerous human rights experts. They have all asked the same that we are asking of the Minister today, which is to remove legal waivers, remove arbitrary time and location-based limits, address the full range of issues faced by child survivors and provide appropriate compensation.

I suppose the Minister has received the same outpouring of emails in opposition to this scheme that we have all received this week. I appeal to him to work with those survivors once again and work with the Opposition. As Senator Boyhan said, this Bill does not go far enough and this is a revising Chamber. As Senator Seery Kearney said, we can do better. The Seanad will rise to that challenge, if given the opportunity.

Senator Paul Gavan

The Minister, as always, is welcome. I want to address the key concerns regarding to this Bill. First, the payment scheme excludes people who, as infants, spent less than six months in a mother and baby or county institutions. Second, the controversial legal waiver remains. Third, no agreement on remuneration with religious orders or pharmaceutical companies has ever been reached. Fourth, boarded-out children have been completely excluded from the payment scheme and enhanced medical card. It is disappointing that the Minister did not address any of those in his speech. These are the issues that we all know about. I ask the Minister to address each of them in turn when he responds to us at the end of this debate. I watched his speech and I watched the contribution of my colleague, Senator Boyhan. As always on this topic, I compliment Senator Boyhan in particular on the courageous way that he has argued very reasonably that, as this is a revising Chamber, we need to take that on board, do our job, be allowed to do our job and revise this Bill. While some progress can be pointed to, it is limited and, ultimately, it is not good enough.

I will take the time to read into the record one of the many pieces of correspondence that we receive because it is important to put it on the record. It is from Mary Harney – not the former Minister – born in Bessborough in 1949. She is now 74 years old. In her letter, she states:

I spent 2 years and 10 months in this mother and baby institution. I was then “Fostered” out and suffered physical abuse, malnourishment, and neglect for another 2 years and six months. I was eventually removed from the "foster parents" by the ISPCC and sentenced to 12 years incarceration in an industrial school by a Cork County Court judge.

She goes on to say, "Minister O’Gorman has deemed in this Bill before you that the cost of my suffering separation from my mother and the abuse suffered at the hands of the people who fostered me is not worth reparation." She then addresses all of us in the Seanad:

You are our last hope for justice to be seen to be done. Please do not consign us to the dustbin of history. Please vote your conscience and not the party whip line. We are your brothers and sisters, your grandparents and parents. We are Irish citizens, yet, for a measly sum we will have to sign a waiver of our constitutional rights and our human right to redress. You are the gatekeepers of Ireland’s legislation. Do the right thing in the name of humanity and justice.

I cannot top the words of Mary Harney. Hopefully, she speaks for everyone in this Chamber.

I do not want to divide this Chamber. If we speak to people informally, most will agree that this Bill has fundamental flaws in it. The difficulty that faces us is we have two choices at this juncture. The first is to continue to go through the procedures, complete Second Stage today, move onto Committee Stage and have the Government adopt a line of “We are not making any further changes.” That is the wrong thing to do. All of us know that this Bill can be improved. We have the legal right and the opportunity to put forward Committee Stage amendments to make it so.

Ultimately, I agree with Mary. This is a fleeting career at times, let us be honest about it. None of us know how long any of us will be here or when we will be asked to leave by our electorates. I scraped in by, I think, a vote and half the last time, so I am very conscious of it. However, when we finish in here, ultimately, we need to be able to hold our heads high. When people ask us whether we did the right thing and stood by right, we need to be able to answer that in the affirmative.

I would respectfully suggest this is not a normal issue. We can disagree on issues such as housing and healthcare. We have different solutions based on ideology, experience and so on and so forth. However, surely, all of us should be able to come together on this issue and this Bill and recognise that it does not go far enough, as Senator Boyhan so rightly said. If we can recognise that, we then have to go further. We have to understand the points made by Mary Harney and we need to address them; not just for her, but for all of the survivors of mother and baby homes. I am thinking in particular of the one in Castlepollard, where I grew up during my teenage years - an absolutely notorious home in its time. I am thinking of the homes in Limerick as well and all the institutions listed.

This is our opportunity to do the right thing. I am appealing in particular to people on the Government benches to work with us, accept that we can do better and use this, the last opportunity on this Bill, to do just that, so that whenever we finish up in this particular Chamber, we can hold our heads up high and say that when push came to shove and when it was put to us, we did the right thing. We can say that we knew this Bill did not go far enough and we worked collegiately together across party lines to make those improvements to make the difference. That is how we will be judged.

Senator Annie Hoey

While recognising the significance of where we are with getting a Bill together on this particular issue, because it has been rumbling on for so long, as other speakers have said, this Bill, as it has gone through the Dáil, lets down some survivors. Unfortunately, there is no question about that. We have the opportunity in this Chamber to ensure that this Bill properly offers redress to all the survivors of the mother and baby homes. My Labour Party colleagues and I will continue to advocate on behalf of those survivors. We have a member, Mags McKinney, with us today.

This Bill omits more than 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 makes no consideration of context. A child resident for 180 days could receive €12,500. A child resident for 179 days would receive nothing. I wish to speak, if I may, for the 40% of survivors who will not be eligible for any scheme because they do not meet the six-month requirement. On the basis of fairness and equity, the six-month requirement is arbitrary and permits no consideration of the context of a person’s life. The idea that a child who spent less than six months in a home suffered no damage or injury and is not entitled to redress is just unacceptable.

I ask that we have regard for those babies, persons and human beings who were resident for that period of time from birth until six months to be included in this scheme on the basis of fairness, justice and equity, in order that the scheme can encompass more people, who we all feel – certainly on the Opposition benches and I think on Government benches also – have a right to be included. Deputies and Senators have all received hundreds upon hundreds of emails from campaigners, former residents and general members of the public who simply wanted to have their voices heard on this issue, pleading with the Government to expand the redress time limits. Not one person has contacted our offices – certainly not mine, anyway – to tell us to proceed with the Bill as written.

The debates we will have in the Chamber are a final opportunity to expand the remit to include all former residents, regardless of the length of time spent in the institution, and we simply want these people to be included. We want any report into or review of the scheme to ensure they are included in order that they will not be excluded forever and that the next generation of politicians - as Senator Gavan highlighted, we might be here for but a fleeting moment and a fleeting vote - will not have to revisit this in the next session and the sessions after that.

I would like to read into the record an extract from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, briefing on the Bill and specifically some of the problems the organisation has identified with it. It states:

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” [which seems to be very specific language]. For children who may have no documentary evidence of their residence, this sets the standard of proof too high.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Survivors have called specifically for trauma-informed counselling and therapies. This is not provided for in the Bill [although I understand it could form a separate aspect].

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.

There are numerous issues with the Bill but the most striking one relates to the exclusion of children who spent less than six months in a home.

The Government's intention to pass the legislation as it stands means it will diminish the suffering of the survivors, 40% of whom will be excluded. As other Senators said, this is our opportunity to change that. The whole point of the Upper House is to examine legislation, provide critical analysis of it and propose how we can make it better and more workable for survivors. I hope we will have the opportunity to do that over the coming weeks.

Senator Marie Sherlock

I very much welcome the fact we are debating Second Stage of the Bill and will for a moment focus on its many positives. I am conscious, as many of us are, of the significant work the Minister has undertaken to get it to where it is. My good friend Mags McKinney is with us in the Gallery today. Her mother, Rose, was a resident in the Tuam mother and baby home on two separate occasions. Even though Rose is now getting on in years and would have liked to be here today, she feels she is beginning to be recognised for the experiences that were forced on her by the Ireland of the not-too-distant past. Their activism and that of so many others, and their perseverance over the past two decades, have brought us to where we are now in debating this redress scheme. It is important to acknowledge that the political system has finally responded to those many years of calling for recognition and justice.

While we very much welcome the Bill, it is sad and frustrating that it falls short on what many of us consider to be fundamental issues of recognition. There are significant questions to be asked - they are already being asked - about the scientific basis for determining six months as the point at which harm and trauma began to be experienced, and the same is true of ignoring the experiences of those in boarding-out arrangements or those caught up in illegal adoptions. Up to 40% of survivors will now be excluded by the six-month requirement. There are significant issues arising from the bitter taste this redress Bill and its enactment over the coming months will leave in the mouths of so many. We cannot claim this is a comprehensive recognition of the hurt and trauma inflicted by our State, by those running institutions on behalf of our State and by religious bodies in the past. In effect, the State is saying there are deserving survivors and undeserving survivors. It is a source of great sadness that we are reinforcing through the Bill the hurt so many have endured over many years in that failure to be recognised.

The Labour Party will be making submissions. We watched with great care and interest the debate in the Dáil. We believe this House should debate amendments to the Bill and we very sincerely ask the Minister to consider them when Committee Stage is tabled. There is a significant opportunity to get the redress scheme right and ensure the bitter taste that is in the mouths of so many will not remain. We must properly recognise the trauma and hurt being experienced by thousands.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

The Minister will have heard from all sides of the House our expectation that he will engage on and improve the Bill. In regard to the wider picture, he will recall that following the publication of the report of the mother and baby homes commission, points that had been made in the Seanad led to a slightly better approach to the access to records. As was outlined by others, however, that has not necessarily been followed through in practice. The delays are unacceptable and, as Senator Seery Kearney pointed out, raise questions regarding the timeline by which people are able to access their information and stories. In any event, the analysis that was presented both in 2015, with some of the original proposals on information and tracing, and later was found to be inadequate, challenged in this House and improved. I hope that, similarly, the Minister will listen to the points being made across the House in respect of the redress scheme and ensure that changes are made and that we get it right. I am glad to see the Bill has not been tabled for next week because there needs to be a period for engagement and for trying to improve it and to address the significant gaps. We do not need any more insult to injury for those who have suffered and we do not need yet another issue that falls short or leaves 40% of those affected feeling as though they have not been recognised.

As others outlined, the Bill, as currently formulated, goes directly against some of the recommendations of the committee but also, crucially, directly against some of the recommendations of the OAK report, which was the result of a consultation process with hundreds of survivors. The recommendations of the report were clear. A majority of the survivors agreed forced family separation should be among the criteria determining the level of redress received. A majority also agreed psychological trauma should be a factor, whereas only 28% believed the length of time spent in an institution was the appropriate measure for determining the extent of the redress. It is baffling, therefore, that the Government's Bill - it may not have been the Minister's decision but he has put forward the Government's Bill - goes directly against what we heard from the OAK report and against the thoughtful recommendations put forward by the committee.

There are many stories of survivors that others have outlined. I might bring one or two in later, but there was one story that struck me in terms of the separation of trauma. It was published in The New York Times at the end of last year. It related to Carmel Larkin, aged 73 years, who was born in the home and separated from her mother. She did not even have a photograph of her. She was fostered out as a girl. Last year, she learned that the mother she never knew, Winifred, had spent a dozen years in a psychiatric hospital not far from Ms Larkin’s home. During those 12 years, she did not have a single visitor. This is what it is to be separated and denied a relationship, and then to feel that somebody you could have had a relationship with was not aware and there was no space for you to have had that contact with them. That is a trauma, and one that lasts.

If a child born in a home and forcibly separated from their parent happened to have spent less than six months in the home, they will receive no redress under this Bill. That is unconscionable. The proposed scheme excludes 24,000 survivors from redress, as has been outlined. Let us think about that six months. There is a reason we have six months' maternity leave, although not in the Oireachtas. It is so deeply acknowledged globally how crucial the first six months are to any child and its development and sense of security. The point was made about the scientific evidence on intrauterine trauma but let us talk about the trauma of that six-month period. We have heard of cases where children were even forcibly separated from their mothers in the same institution and given to others to nurse in order to ensure that a bond would not be formed. There is this idea about someone was not there for that long and moved into another home. It is a suggestion which does not come from scientific analysis that is in any way accurate about the first six months a child experiences. I fear the six-month cut-off comes from a lingering of the old attitude that deeply pervaded the State’s approach for decades, namely, the idea that “We got you into a good family. Don’t worry.” There is an idea that a child has been moved into another situation that is somehow better. I remember back in 2015 when we first started really examining this issue we were told by officials that people moved on and they had these new opportunities and somehow that was supposed to be a positive thing. Yet the scientific evidence tells us about the trauma of separation. It tells us about what it is to have a parent in distress for a child.

Speaking of parents in distress, another deeply unacceptable aspect of this Bill is the idea that a mother who was forcibly separated from her child and happened to have spent less than six months in an institution would not be entitled to the provision of the full health service benefit by means of an enhanced medical card. One of the most intense and challenging things that any woman can undergo is the process of giving birth. We know the risks associated with it. We know from the commission report that the experience of giving birth in these institutions was often deliberately painful. I will quote from the confidential committee report, which states:

... what was additionally dreadful for them, they said, was the complete absence of pain medication. This, some alleged, had been deliberate since their birth pains were represented by some nuns (and nurses) as "punishment" - retribution by God for becoming pregnant out of wedlock.

[...]

The overall experience of birth was described by some as so traumatic that there were lifelong physical repercussions, while others were traumatised psychologically.

These are the institutions and the birth experiences that women had but so long as they were out of there before six months, the Bill does not think they need an enhanced medical card. That is inadequate. The minimum six months' residency must be changed both for children and the mother’s access to appropriate and proper enhanced medical cards.

There are other arbitrary exclusions as a theme in this Bill, and we will have a chance to tease them out. Take the exclusion of the survivors who spent time in institutions other than county homes and who are not entitled to any work-related payment. There is a very insulting suggestion that it is work that they would be doing anyway, yet the people driving the laundry back and forth from hotels in Dublin and wherever else was being paid. This is work that was taking place in these homes that needs to be recognised. Another important one is the failure to recognise the treatment of mixed-race children who were often not only placed in mother and baby homes but in nurseries of other institutions and were subject to additional racial discrimination and suffering in some situations. That needs to be recognised.

Then there is the inclusion of a waiver provision. This goes directly against the UN Human Rights Committee’s recommendation. There should be no waiver. We talk about a non-adversarial approach; that is not tying the arms of the victim behind themselves so that they cannot take other actions they may need to take to vindicate their rights. A waiver is unacceptable.

I have many more points to make. I have three pages of issues that need to be addressed, actually, which I will leave but I would make one crucial point. There is a lot of talk about a chapter in our history; it is a chapter in Ireland’s history. Yes, this will be a large scheme. It needs to be and we can afford it to be because we are talking about a systematic approach taken by the State. It was not an anomaly, so it needs to be treated in that way. People can talk about it as a chapter in our history, but let us be clear that for the survivors, it is not a chapter in history; it is their lives. We are talking about recognition of their lives and experiences, and the scheme needs to be comprehensive. We can improve the Bill and fix it, but we have to work together on it and we have to make changes.

Senator Regina Doherty

It is very fitting that all the visitors in both Galleries are women. I acknowledge their presence and welcome them. I want to make a shoutout to my colleague, Senator Boyhan. His contribution at the outset of this debate was striking and startling. I am always struck by his commitment and passion when he speaks about his own life experiences. I thank him for that.

I thank the Minister for his contributions and for his efforts in respect of the Bill to date. We all know that the Bill is significantly different and hugely improved because of his efforts and those of his officials compared with the commission’s recommendations. I need to reiterate my revulsion at the commission’s report, its deliberately misleading narrative and the huge disservice it did to the witnesses who were so courageous. These were people who were in institutions and the children that were born to them and the people in their families who were courageous enough to give their testimony to that commission and who were let down by a State-appointed body. The Minister took sincere steps to improve the initial offering on the basis that his efforts were going to show our bona fides and his sincerity was to show people, in the context of this Bill, what we were trying to do to provide reparations for them on foot of what they experienced. We have achieved that up to a point.

Where we fall down is in the context of the 24,000 Irish people who have been left behind. I honestly do not know why they have been left behind. I do not mean this disrespectfully, but I do not see in any of the transcripts or any of the statements that have come from the Minister and the Department any logical reason as to why this is the case. I do not understand the difference between someone who was there a couple of days before the deadline compared with a couple of days after the deadline. There is no scientific evidence or logic for this. Unfortunately, it comes down to the idea that it boils down to money.

I hate that. The trauma of being separated from one's mother, must be - I cannot speak from experience - such a difficult journey to navigate no matter what age the truth is discovered. As Senator Higgins stated, I am quite sure that children who left before six months and were fostered or adopted did not find out before six months that that experience had happened to them. We should not think the trauma they experienced when they found out the reality of their lives is a small issue. The Bill as it stands today excludes these people from our apology for their experience, from an acknowledgement of the trauma of their experience and it will certainly hinder any recovery journey they may be going through. We are compounding the hurt and trauma they have been through. I know that is not the Government's intention so I am asking the Minister with our support - I hope I have the support of all our colleagues - to go back to the Government, to my and his Cabinet colleagues and ask them not to leave anyone behind and to recognise the hurt we have caused in recent months since this Bill was brought through the Dáil. I ask him to recognise the opportunity we have. He has my full support and I am sure he has the support of everyone else here.

I am not sure I understand why we have excluded the mothers from the medical card offering. Trauma does not necessarily happen at the time of an experience. It might happen many moons later. We should probably try to revisit that.

Last week President Biden was in town and it was an uplifting experience. In a speech outside the cathedral in Mayo, my boss, Deputy Varadkar, stated:

...we must rededicate ourselves to playing our part in the fight between darkness and light, in the fight between despair and hope, injustice and dignity. We must pray for the wisdom to guide us, the words to speak up for those without a voice and shield to protect our planet and do what is the right thing.

In his utterances about this Bill in the past 12 months, the Minister has been determined that we want to act with kindness and absolutely do no harm. The harm was done when the State allowed psychological, physical and sexual abuse including degrading and dehumanising behaviour. That was all handed out in the homes. If we do not want to do any more harm, we must decide what we will do at the crossroads we are at today. My other colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, announced eye-watering figures of financial expectations yesterday. The one thing I know is that we are not short of money. I ask my Government to play a part in that fight against darkness and despair. I hope we treat people with justice and dignity because we have the opportunity to do so right now. Other Governments have failed these people through the State's involvement. We are at a crossroads where we should not fail anyone and we should not leave anyone behind.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

The Minister is welcome to the House. I congratulate him on bringing this Bill forward. At the outset, I will remark on the work of our library service in providing excellent briefing material. I compliment the joint Oireachtas committee that sat and deliberated on this issue and I remember those parents who adopted and fostered children. In many case, in fact in most cases, they were not demons. They were genuine decent people.

Fifty years ago was the first time I encountered a young woman in Galway who was pregnant and was being sent away. I think about the weekends in particular in my elder lemon years when my three granddaughters, Ellie, Isabelle and Alice visit the house. I get joy and pleasure out of watching them deliver their first words, taking their first steps, coming in to argue with me now that they are a little older and putting me in my box. I love those moments. How many children and mothers who went through this system we are talking about never had those moments? They never had a stupid grandfather buying them chocolate when he should not and stupid things like that. I grew up with a father who was extremely Victorian in many ways. I remember his attitude to girls who fell pregnant - that is the way he would describe it - in Galway. He used to ask what all the fuss was about and say they only did what was natural. That was his attitude and yet he was Victorian. You could not mention sex in my house. My father would take off out the door like the clappers. He would hear the word sex and it was time to leave. However, when he would hear about a girl being pregnant he would say "what is all the fuss about? She only did what was natural". However, we created a society that sadly most in this room are too young to remember. When a girl got pregnant, the father of the child took off to England or wherever was as far as he could go in order not be in any way associated with it. The girl in question would be sent off wherever. We are dealing with mother and baby homes. We are not dealing with the women who were sent to spend their pregnancies with a family and deliver the child. The moment the child was delivered it was taken from them and put up for adoption and they never heard from or saw that child again. Two people I know well who went through that experience both have great relationships now with the child they gave up 40 odd years ago. It is great that can happen.

When I look at the recommendations and especially the six month rule, I wonder why we always have to put a date on a calendar. Why can we not just say, if a person was born in that situation, if a person served time in one of these godforsaken mother and baby homes, that person should be treated on an equal basis?

I get annoyed when I hear the religious congregations being constantly pounded because 5% or 10% of the religious were bad people. The rest were bloody good people who did a great job in this country, but unfortunately we farmed out the things we did not want to touch, such as mother and baby homes and industrial schools. We farmed them out and we really did not care what happened inside them, as long as we did not have to look in. People who served in this House who were professionals such as doctors, nurses and teachers were all aware of what was going on in these institutions and places and they did nothing. A woman contacted me who spent time in Bessborough Mother and Baby Home. She told me that she does not recognise what is spoken about and says she had a relatively easy time there. The other side of that coin is that I could find ten women who have a totally different story. We have to be very careful.

We were talking about the boarded out scheme. The waiver should be removed from the scheme. The bottom line is that all Members have been receiving countless emails in the past few days. As legislators we should pause, take a little time. The Minister should get a few people to work with him to improve the Bill and make it a Bill that is worthy of the people who were demonised. I still think about the girls who left Galway. They were not only demonised by the system. They were demonised by the people. They were demonised by the fathers who made them pregnant and bloody well walked away from them and left them with nothing. Something that really annoys me is that when a girl gets pregnant she is demonised and called all sorts of bloody names. Where are the fathers who fathered those children? Has anyone ever seen a father come forward and say he is the father of a child and that he left that poor woman destitute? Did anyone ever do that? No.

Acting Chairperson (Senator Erin McGreehan)

Absolutely not.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

We as a society owe the women. The Acting Chairperson is looking at me to tell me that my time is coming to an end.

Acting Chairperson (Senator Erin McGreehan)

I agree with the Senator though.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

I ask the Minister to let sense prevail. My colleague Senator Boyhan is correct that this is the revising House. We have an opportunity to get this right. Senator Doherty said it a few moments ago. Everyone who has spoken today has said it. Let us pause for a moment. Let us get it right. Let us work together. The Minister has done a fantastic job so far. Let us get it 100% right. I think the Minister has the courage to do that and I ask him to do so.

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

I thank the Senators for their detailed engagement with the debate and discussion today. I thank those who have joined us to listen both in the Chamber and online. We all recognise that this scheme is awaited by survivors. It is critical that we get the legislative framework in place as soon as possible. Any scheme brought forward by a Government cannot meet all expectations. I recognise that in bringing this forward.

I appreciate there is a real depth of feeling, held by many, that the scheme does not go far enough. I stress that it is one element of the Government's response to what happened in these institutions. Unfortunately, the scheme can only deliver so much.

I will try to respond to the points made, some of which were raised by several Senators and others individually. There was reference in particular to the six-month period individuals must have been in an institution to qualify for payment. The proposals under the scheme, as brought forward in this legislation, were developed and put to the Government by an interdepartmental group. That group went further than what was originally suggested by the commission as to which groups might qualify for redress. The commission spoke about including women who spent time in institutions before 1974 and children who were unaccompanied. That recommendation would have included approximately 6,500 former residents for financial payment. When the interdepartmental group brought forward its report, it proposed the six-month criterion, whereby anyone who had spent more than six months in an institution would qualify for a payment, while those who spent less time would not. This would have meant some 19,000 people qualifying for a payment.

When the Government examined this proposal, which took a significant amount of discussion in the summer and well into the autumn of 2021, it decided to go further and include a payment to all mothers regardless of the time they spent in institutions. This was done in acknowledgement of the traumatic effect of being admitted to one of these institutions and the stigma, which many speakers referenced, faced by mothers after they left. This has led us to a scheme under which financial payment is being proposed for 34,000 former residents and provision of an enhanced medical card for 19,000 former residents.

The rate of payments was raised by a number of Senators. The graduated rates under the scheme proportionately acknowledge that more prolonged exposure to the harsh conditions, which we know from the commission's report existed in these institutions, was endured by those who spent longer periods in them. We absolutely recognise that no amount of money can make up for what people experienced in the institutions. The decision by the Government to go beyond the interdepartmental group's recommendation and include mothers regardless of the time spent was taken in order to provide some recognition of the particular and unique lifelong impact that being admitted to one of these institutions had, irrespective of the time for which women were resident there.

Senator Boyhan, as ever, made his points incredibly eloquently and with the benefit of his personal experience and his engagement with so many people over many years on the issue of vaccine trials. The scheme, as we have designed it, provides an all-encompassing general payment for eligible applicants in recognition of time spent in the institutions, the harsh conditions and the emotional abuse and other forms of mistreatment, stigma and trauma experienced by people while they were resident there. It is designed to be a non-adversarial process in order that people can come forward, show they were in an institution for a certain period and therefore qualify for the relevant payment. Under previous redress schemes, people were asked to come forward to speak about and provide oral evidence of the abuse and trauma they suffered in institutions. Indeed, under some schemes, people were cross-examined on their evidence. We know that was the wrong way to go. That is why we have designed this scheme on the basis that if there is evidence of residence, that is it and the payment is made. It was a decision we made early on in the process to make the scheme simple and, most importantly and insofar as we could, to avoid the retraumatisation of people having to go through an adversarial process. In order to deliver such a scheme, we could not design it to take account of particular issues, whether that be the subjection of individuals to non-consensual vaccinations or individuals' belief that because of their race, they experienced particular treatment in an institution. It should also be noted that we know the vaccine trials went far beyond just those who were living in mother and baby institutions.

Following the publication of the commission's final report, I met with representatives of GlaxoSmithKline, GSK, to whom I conveyed my view that all relevant parties, including that company, had a moral and ethical obligation to take appropriate action on foot of the report. I urged them to consider what the report had laid bare in terms of the company's actions. It should be noted that those actions were taken by the precursor organisations to the current GSK but, nevertheless, I urged the representatives to respond appropriately given their wider corporate responsibilities. They wrote back to me following that meeting. It is ultimately a matter for the company to decide what response it takes but I am aware that it has decided not to take any action in terms of a monetary contribution to any scheme. It has arranged for access to information for those who might wish to seek it from the company. The Senator probably will be of the view that this is not sufficient. I am of the same view, which I conveyed to the organisation when I engaged with it.

Senator Seery Kearney and others referenced engagement with congregations. Following the commission's report, I commenced a process of engagement with religious congregations and church leaders with a view to discussing how they might contribute to the payment scheme. Meetings commenced on an individual basis with each of the religious congregations and lay Catholic organisations involved with the institutions. At those meetings, which took place in December 2021 and January 2022, we looked to outline the details of the proposed payment scheme and to discuss how the congregations and organisations intended to contribute to the costs of the scheme. I recognise the importance of these discussions to survivors and the public. While the matter is ongoing, it is being treated as confidential, which is the only way to be able successfully to proceed. A full report will be provided to the Government when the negotiations are concluded. I always said I wanted to prioritise the delivery of this legislation and that its delivery should never be predicated on the conclusion of the process of engagement with the congregations. I want to get the legislation done. Even though it has taken time, we have looked to prioritise its provisions as much as possible. The negotiations with the congregations will continue. When they come to a conclusion, irrespective of what that conclusion is, I will be accountable to both Houses for it.

A number of Senators spoke about the situation of persons who were boarded out in Ireland. We recognise that some people who spent time in mother and baby homes were boarded out, but the reality is that people were boarded out in many other instances as well. Many were boarded out directly from their homes or, indeed, from other institutions. I was tasked with designing a scheme for those who were in mother and baby institutions and county homes. That is what I have sought to do and this is the scheme I was tasked to design. It is important to say that if anyone was boarded out from a mother and baby institution and was in that institution as a child for more than six months, he or she will qualify under the scheme for the period spent in that institution. As with the situation of those who underwent non-consensual vaccination trials, this scheme is designed around individualised assessment and individualised evidence not being used. It is based on the amount of time spent in an institution. I recognise that this does not allow for the individualised experiences of those who were boarded out. I recognise that some of those experiences were deeply abusive. However, we have not been able to design a scheme that achieves the goal of being non-adversarial, simple and allowing people to qualify by dint of the time spent in an institution while also allowing for individualised assessments that look at individuals' situations.

Several Senators spoke about the issue of the Birth Information and Tracing Act 2022 and the delays experienced. I am glad of the opportunity to speak about that. To date, since it was opened for the provision of information in October last year, 7,800 people have made requests for information, which is a very significant number. There have been approximately 800 applications since the opening in 2021 of the database of the mother and baby homes commission, which was held by my Department, so it is a much greater number. That is partially to do with the extensive information campaign we did domestically and abroad.

When the legislation was going through the Dáil, we added the time periods, they were not suggested in the pre-legislative scrutiny report. We decided in the Department to put in a 30-day normal processing period and a 90-day period for complex cases. Sometimes I wish I did not do that but it was the right thing to do. People should get information within a period of time. There was a significant number of applications at the start because, as we know, people have been waiting for literally decades to get access to this information. It is important to say that of those 7,800 cases, 3,500 have now been answered. Some 3,500 people have received a reply from either Tusla or the Adoption Authority of Ireland in terms of the provision of information. There is still a backlog in the organisations and I am in contact with the relevant parties. I will meet the Tusla board on Monday and this will be one of the issues to be discussed. It is working through the backlog. I believe by the end of the summer or October, it will be back to a steady state and people will get their replies within the 30-day or 90-day period. People are getting information. People have contacted me to say that they got their birth certificates and saw their birth names for the first time ever. This legislation is delivering. I recognise that for people who have been waiting for so long, this additional delay is a source of real frustration. I reassure people that we are working with the organisations to make sure that backlog is worked through and the vital information is delivered.

Senators McGreehan and Seery Kearney spoke about the vulnerability of those who will receive payments under this scheme, which we recognise. It will not be in the legislation but we are putting in place measures to address that. Similarly, there will be a detailed information campaign around this legislation domestically and internationally to inform people of their rights. We understand many of the people who will apply under this legislation are living abroad now and felt they needed to leave the country following their experiences in these institutions. I was going to speak more broadly and try to locate this legislation within the wider set of measures the Government is taking, some of which I spoke about earlier. I spoke about the Birth Information and Tracing Act 2022 and the Institutional Burials Act 2022, regarding records and the memorial centre, which survivors have spoken to us about. Some of the measures have been concluded and some are being advanced but all are advancing.

The Senators spoke about the vulnerability of survivors and former residents. We are working with local authorities to get a better understanding of how they may identify people in their areas who are former residents and may be vulnerable. The Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, has established a working group in which my Department, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, the County and City Management Association, CCMA and local authorities are represented. The working group is examining practical supports, which the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, urged me to look into. The group is also examining the issue of local memorialisation. It is also important to recognise that these sites are all over the country and, in some areas, their status is undetermined. Senator Hoey spoke about the issue of counselling. Free counselling has been available to all former residents of these institutions since the commission's report. To be honest, it is not taken up a huge amount and I advise Senators, many of whom know survivors, to make that information available to them. It is designed, free and former residents are given prioritised access to this counselling from the National Counselling Service, NCS, set up under the HSE and is trauma-informed. The reason that is not referenced in the legislation is it exists already.

An issue raised in the past was the importance of the use of sensitive and appropriate language, which is something we discussed particularly in the Birth Information and Tracing Act 2022 in terms of terminology around mothers, birth mothers and what is the best way to proceed. My Department, through the Irish Research Council, funded research in the University of Galway to investigate this issue. In February, the University of Galway published the findings of the research on language, terminology and representation of those directly affected by mother and baby and county home institutions. It is a useful analysis of the use of stigmatising language and how, even today, we can still inadvertently use inappropriate language. Some of these issues are perhaps different in scale and magnitude from the legislation we are addressing today, but all are issues that survivors have raised with many of us. It is important to set what we are doing today in terms of the range of responses the Government is taking, having listened to survivors and having sought to meet different responses. We all know different survivors have different personal priorities regarding how they want the Government to respond. I look forward to a further exchange of views with Members of the Seanad and to working with them to bring forward the best possible legislation in order that survivors can finally access the benefits of this scheme. I ask that Senators support this legislation so we can provide these benefits as rapidly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Cuireadh an Seanad ar fionraí ar 4.17 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 5.01 p.m.

Sitting suspended at 4.17 p.m. and resumed at 5.01 p.m.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 19 Apr 2023

Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Bill 2022: Second Stage

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Apr 2023