Vol. 295 No. 3
I acknowledge and welcome Councillor Brendan Weld and his family to the Distinguished Visitors’ Gallery. I hope they enjoy the proceedings and their tour of Leinster House.
We are resuming the debate on amendment No. 14. Amendments Nos. 14, 18, 19 and 41 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 14, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“Report on provision of additional payments to those who experienced forced family separation
19. The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the potential to make provision for supplementary payments, in addition to any entitlement under this section to a general payment or work-related payment under this Act, to relevant persons who experienced forced family separation while, or as a result of being, resident in a relevant institution.”.
I second the amendment.
Amendment No. 14 calls for a report after 12 months on the potential for additional payments to be made available under the scheme for those who experienced forced family separation. We had to resubmit this Committee Stage amendment with a new timeframe of 12 months.
Senator Higgins argued at length on the issue of forced family separation on Committee Stage but it is important that I make it clear during this final debate. It is a gross abuse of the trust of survivors that forced family separation is totally absent and completely unrecognised within the redress scheme. The sole use of the length of stay and number of days criterion as a basis for this scheme goes directly against the recommendations of the OAK report, which was the result of a consultation process with hundreds of survivors. The recommendations of that report could not have been more clear. Some 64% of survivors agreed that forced family separations should be among the criteria determining the amount of redress received, while 61% agreed that psychological trauma should be a factor. By contrast, only 28% said that time spent in an institution should determine the amount of redress. It is not acceptable that this scheme should pass without the provision of any form of redress for forced family separation, which was clearly identified as the most traumatic aspect of time spent in the institutions for many people.
We have heard stories of mothers and children separated, often for decades, with no idea of who or where their family members were. We have heard of alienation and the loneliness and desperation that resulted from this separation and we have heard of the often irreparable damage that this absence did to people's lives. We have heard haunting and unforgettable stories, including the story of Carmel Larkin, who was separated from her mother at birth. She found out many decades later, only after her mother had died, that she had been living in a psychiatric institution not far from Carmel's home. In the 12 years her mother lived there, she had not received a single visitor. All the while her daughter lived down the road and was longing to meet and connect with her birth mother. How can cruelty like this ever be understood or made up for? Wrongs like this can never be made right but the fact this redress scheme does not even mention the term "forced family separation", and the fact this term is not mentioned once in the Bill, is a staggering omission. It is a gross abuse of the trust of survivors and a cruelty heaped on cruelty.
The redress scheme is not supposed to just be about money; it is supposed to be about recognition. Instead of recognition, what we see is almost a form of denial. It is a dishonest representation of the harm that was done to people. The number of days a person spent in an institution says nothing about what they suffered there or about what was taken away from them. Senator Higgins argued these points at length on Committee Stage and I am sure the response will be the same this time. The Government claims its justification for the length of stay criterion is to be non-adversarial but there is the potential for the payments scheme to adopt an adversarial approach while also incorporating a form of individualised assessment by taking a two-track approach as proposed by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC. It is possible to give people the option of applying for an award under track 1, based purely on length of stay and without the requirement to submit any testimony, as is planned under the current scheme. However, alongside this, an option should also exist to pursue an individualised payment based on testimony or evidence of specific circumstances or experiences like forced family separation. For some survivors, financial payments for specific harms experienced, alongside a general payment, would recognise the different forms and levels of harm survivors experienced. We know, because of the OAK report, that the majority of survivors want their experiences of forced family separation recognised.
Following last week's Report Stage debate, this amendment has new significance. It was everyone's understanding when the legislation left the Dáil that all mothers who gave birth under the conditions of homes would be included in the redress scheme. This was what was promised by the zero to 89 days in the Schedule. It was promised that mothers who spent any amount of time in the homes would be included. This would have meant that, while experiences of forced family separation are recognised nowhere in the Bill, at the very least all mothers who gave birth in the homes would have the opportunity to claim a general payment. Those who may have only spent time in the homes to give birth but who may have had their child separated from them would at least have received a general payment, which was in no way adequate but at least was not nothing. Since the addition of the Government's amendments Nos. 5 and 7 during our last Report Stage session, it seems these mothers may be excluded. This is especially cruel, given that when we are arguing against the exclusion of children who spent less than six months in the homes, the Government's frequent response was that at least all mothers were included. Is that even true anymore? I fear that many mothers who experienced the horror of their child being forcibly separated from them will not only not receive any payment to recognise this, but will not even receive a general payment under the scheme, which is totally unacceptable.
Amendment No. 18 follows on from our amendments on Committee Stage. It calls for recognition of the experiences of mixed race children in the institutions through additional payments for experiences of racial abuse and discrimination and also through the inclusion in the scheme of other institutions in which mixed race children were placed. This was argued at length on Committee Stage.
I want to raise it again and put forward some of the key points. Mixed-race survivors have exhausted all possible domestic avenues for redress. There is currently no way for survivors to get justice in Ireland for historical racial discrimination in institutions, given the statute of limitations and other issues. This redress scheme should have been an avenue for justice for the survivors but offers nothing in the way of specific redress for racial discrimination. Again, we speak of an adversarial approach, but many survivors want to have their individual experiences recognised. Again, this entails the two-track approach proposed by IHREC. The approach involves the idea that, on top of a non-adversarial track whereby people would just get a payment based on the length of time spent in the institution, there should be an option of a second track, with an additional payment for those who want their lived experience of racial abuse and discrimination recognised.
In September 2022, UN experts called for adequate redress for systemic racism and racial discrimination in Irish childcare institutions between the 1940s and the 1990s. In addition, the Irish Racial Justice Forum made a complaint against Ireland to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, CERD. I thank Mr. Conrad Bryan again for all his work on this issue. It is very likely that, in the near future, the Government will have to outline how it plans to provide redress for systemic racism and racial discrimination in Irish childcare institutions between the 1940s and 1990s, to either the CERD or another international human rights body. Once again, I ask the Minister to outline the Government's plans in this respect. If he is refusing to provide redress for systemic racism in institutions through this redress scheme, when will redress be provided? That is a simple question, and a clear answer is owed to survivors who are once again disappointed by being rendered invisible by this scheme.
Amendment No. 19 calls for a report on the potential to provide additional payments to those who experienced illegal or non-consensual medical or vaccine trials in the institution. This amendment, once again, hints at the two-track approach proposed by IHREC. The approach involves the idea that on top of the non-adversarial track whereby people would just get a payment based on the length of time spent in the institution, there should be an option of a second track, with an additional payment for those who want their experience of medical experimentation recognised. The pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, which still operates here, declined to apologise for its vaccine trials in mother and baby homes between the 1930s and 1970s despite its own documents showing it conducted seven trials at homes over the four decades. It is unacceptable that the scheme currently does not provide any redress for the medical abuse of people subjected to illegal vaccine trials.
Our amendment also calls for the exploration of options to compel culpable pharmaceutical companies to contribute to the scheme. We have heard the Minister's argument on Committee Stage and that he is engaged with the companies. As many Senators have already said, this is simply not enough. We are beyond the point of asking politely for companies to contribute. This is why we must continue to press this amendment.
Amendment No. 41 follows on from our Committee Stage discussion. It calls for a review of the scheme to be triggered by rulings by international human rights bodies relating to justice for mixed-race survivors of institutions. It calls for the review to consider how the scheme could be brought into compliance with such a ruling. We modified the wording slightly because the Minister indicated on Committee Stage that it was too broad. He will note the new wording would trigger a review only in response to rulings relating to justice for mixed-race survivors of the institutions. The Irish Racial Justice Forum has now made a complaint against Ireland to CERD. Again, I thank Mr. Bryan for all his work in this regard. Ireland will have the power to contest the admissibility of the case. Once again, I urge the Government not to test the admissibility of the case and to allow it to be heard by CERD on its merits. This is the approach that the Irish Racial Justice Forum wants the Government to take.
As I have already outlined, mixed-race survivors of the institutions have exhausted all other possible domestic avenues. They engaged with the commission of investigation, whose report was deeply disappointing to them. The commission concluded that there was no direct evidence of different treatment or institutionalised racism in the records, and that there does not appear to have been systemic discrimination. This directly contradicts survivors' testimonies. The statute of limitations and the absence of historic laws against racial discrimination mean the individuals cannot pursue justice in the domestic courts. They engaged in good faith with the scheme and are once again going to be disappointed with its current form. In this context, CERD is the last forum for them in which to have their rights vindicated.
Ireland signed the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, ICERD, in 1968 and ratified it in 2000. Upon ratification, Ireland made the declaration under Article 41 of the convention recognising the competence of CERD to receive and consider communications from individuals or groups of individuals within Ireland claiming to be victims of violations by Ireland of any of the rights set forth in the convention. We have ratified the convention and given CERD the right to adjudicate on these matters, so it is now imperative that the State does not block the process by contesting admissibility. Amendment No. 41 would allow the scheme to be responsive to the results of a complaint heard by CERD relating to systemic racism in the institutions.
I support the amendments tabled by Senators Ruane, Higgins, Black and Flynn. I thank them very much for the really extensive work they have done on this legislation to this point.
I want to touch on two of the amendments, Nos. 18 and 19. Amendment No. 18 relates to the experiences of mixed-race children in Irish institutions. At the end of the day, there was downright racism. The institutions were State institutions and most were under State control, and we now have a situation in which there is nothing relevant in the documentation when you try to summarise what occurred. I spoke to a journalist this afternoon who asked me about some of the key issues. This is about those who experienced racism, those who were subjected to drug trials and those who spent fewer than six months in an institution. None of these people are covered or getting any redress. There are many good aspects to this Bill, but when we crystallise what we will be saying on "Morning Ireland" tomorrow or the next day, our intention will be to spell out the circumstances of those who have been excluded. I have proposed putting parallel arrangements in place but they have not gone down well either.
I acknowledge the work of Mr. Conrad Bryan, who I am aware has tuned in tonight. He has done an enormous amount of work with us and has liaised with many of us on this side of the House. Having talked to many people on the other side of the House, he had expectations that they would be more vocal in their support for him, but that simply has not happened. That is the reality of it. The great thing about being in this House is that when we debate these issues, we have the comments on record. Mr. Bryan has told me he engaged with and spoke to several members of the committee and that he has studied its work extensively. The committee did great work but somehow it is just not reflected in this legislation. There was much expectation but that is for another day and we still have to decide on amendment No. 18 in a few moments.
On amendment No. 19, on the pharmaceutical vaccine trials, I am not going to go on at great length. We are all conscious that we are under time pressure. I am conscious that the Minister wants to get this legislation through the House and that there are many good aspects to it. There are many tuned in tonight who will benefit greatly from some of its provisions, which has to be acknowledged, but how can this be squared with the position on vaccine trials? A journalist asked me how it could be squared that people gained access to the institutions illegally. They did not break the doors down but were facilitated and brought in. Children were taken out of cots and prams and injected with substances, and this has not been accounted for. Regarding a pharmaceutical company whose name I saw in the press, I circulated the information to every member of the Oireachtas in the past week. At the end of the day, no one has been held accountable. It is downright outrageous and nobody seems to be crying halt. No one seems to be coming up with an alternative to say that while we have missed the boat, we are making a commitment. No one is standing up saying what the Government is prepared to do.
To be fair to Deputy Micheál Martin, a long time ago, when he was Minister for Health, he asked Dr. Kiely, the then Chief Medical Officer, to investigate the matter of the vaccine trials. I came to the Houses with a very large contingent of people, about 40, on the basis of an invitation from many parliamentarians and we heard how shocking the matter was. The former Minister for Health talked about the institutions, including Bessborough. Dr. Kiely took four samples as he clearly could not investigate all the institutions. He found that, in all cases, drug trials took place without anyone acting in loco parentis.
It is on the record of the House and I will circulate it again tomorrow. Deputy Micheál Martin is Tánaiste now and last year when he was Taoiseach, he was fully committed to it. He is on the record as telling the House that he wanted a just system but it has gone nowhere. It is very important that tomorrow or the next day we are able to put our heads in the media to explain why the Government is not putting in place redress with regard to the pharmaceutical industry, which carried out illegal drug trials on children in State care. We know that many children died in care. We cannot attribute it to these particular vaccine trials but we know they did. We know a number of these children went on to develop serious liver function problems and to this day they get liver function tests four times a year. We cannot be certain of the reason for this but a large cohort of people who lived in some of these institutions went on to develop liver problems. There is an issue.
I have reminded the House, and I will reiterate, that Alan Shatter, a very eminent lawyer and then a member of Fine Gael, contacted a group I was involved with regarding legal representation or assisting us with legal advice. We did not have the money to take him on board for legal representation but he gave us good advice. He reminded us of the right to bodily integrity enshrined in the Constitution, under which the Parliament operates. People have a constitutional right to bodily integrity. How can the Minister explain that there is no provision for these people? Does he have any idea or any plan to set up another form of redress or investigation?
I call again on the Government to examine its relationship with GlaxoSmithKline. There was a very interesting article in the Sunday Independent or the Business Post, which are the two newspapers I read last Sunday. It stated that 80% of the pharmaceuticals purchased in the State are purchased by State agencies through the general health medical system. This is an enormous contribution. The State is spending money heavily. I understand this and I do not have an issue with it but we must seriously look at the State's relationship with this company. I am serious when I say this. This is the message I will be belting out over the next few days. Is it acceptable and tenable for the Government to continue to sign highly lucrative contracts with GlaxoSmithKline? The Government is aware that the company is the successor to a number of companies that carried out illegal drug trials on children in State care. I suggest it is not acceptable. I suggest we need to point in the direction of very detailed scrutiny.
It was attributed to the Minister in some media cuttings that I pulled together for another project yesterday that he would have expected the company to do the right and honourable thing. We would all have done so. We have leverage if the State spends millions of euros with this company. I know it is an employer in the country and that it contributes to the economy, pharmaceuticals and research and education. I know it does a lot of good things but it is not unreasonable that the pressure should mount on this particular company to make a contribution in some way to a scheme. If it makes a contribution to a scheme, that contribution needs to be ring-fenced first for the people who were subject to abuse by the company in the vaccine trials. I support the amendment.
I support the amendment. Last week I was on "The Late Debate" and I was very surprised at the number of people who messaged me afterwards to say they did not realise that some people in mother and baby homes were subject to vaccine trials. They did not realise the extent of the ill-treatment of mixed-race children and their families. They were surprised that they were not included in the legislation. I do not have much more to add, other than to say we were speaking about it on "The Late Debate" and people said they did not know this had happened. They had heard about the women and about people being bordered out. People had heard different things. There are things people have not heard of and they were surprised that they are not being included.
On that programme a member of a Government party said the reason the Government will not give the payment to the people who were in there for only six months is that during the consultation period those who were in there for six months or less said they would prefer to have their records. Is this the reason it happened? I find it hard to believe that we could not have given them their records and a small financial amount. A Government Deputy said this on radio. I am interested to hear whether this is the Government's response.
I support the amendment. People contacted me to say they were surprised to hear additional things happened in these homes. They were surprised to hear the people involved would not be included under this legislation.
I thank Senator Ruane for tabling the amendment. I will respond to Senator Hoey. She said people are not included. Anyone who is mixed race and was in mother and baby or county home institution is included in this scheme. Anyone who underwent non-consensual vaccine trials and was in a mother and baby home or a county home is included in the scheme. They get a general payment. There is not a specific stream of payment to recognise the discrimination they suffered as a result of being mixed race. There is no additional payment for the fact they received an non-consensual vaccination. I accept there is criticism and I hope to outline the reason we are not taking this approach. We are on the record and it is important. Senator Hoey has phrased it in a way that suggests that they are outside it entirely.
I am sorry.
I take the point.
Unfortunately, I am not in a position to accept the amendments, which propose reports after 12 months to determine the potential to make additional payments to specific groups of survivors and to cause a review of the scheme following any decision, opinion or recommendation of international human rights bodies.
In addition in response to Senator Hoey's point, as I outlined during Committee Stage proceedings the scheme will provide an all-encompassing general payment to eligible applicants. As I have said previously, this is recognition of the time spent in the harsh conditions in these institutions, the emotional abuse and the other forms of mistreatment, and the stigma and trauma experienced by them in these institutions. It is designed explicitly to create general recognition. It is designed explicitly to be non-adversarial so that people do not have to bring forward evidence of the specific traumas they faced. This recognises that previous schemes were criticised because people had to do this here in Ireland and in other jurisdictions. The general payment under the scheme is intended to recognise all of the circumstances a person experienced while resident in a mother and baby or county home institution. It does not require people to bring forward specific evidence of the harm or abuse they experienced in that home.
It is important to note the scheme recognises experiences in mother and baby and county home institutions only. It cannot take into account the experiences that children experienced in other institutions if they were moved to them. As we know, there are redress schemes for some of the other institutions such as industrial schools and Magdalen laundries. This is why I have always argued in response to amendments such as this that it is important that amendments we make to the scheme, and reports the scheme requires to be written, are focused on what the scheme is about. The scheme is about a very large number of people, with 34,000 potential beneficiaries. If we are to write reports, they should be on the content of the scheme and not on the content of other elements of the legacy. I know and I recognise the large legacy of the institutional treatment of children, women and people with mental health challenges. We are not in a position to deal with every element of it in this Bill. The Government gave the Department a directive to respond to the mother and baby and county home institutions. This is what we seek to do.
On the amendments dealing with the vaccine trials, I hate to be a broken record but this is what has happened. I have met with GSK and outlined my views very strongly. Its representatives spoke about how the company's staff felt hearing what happened in these institutions and about the forerunner of GSK's involvement in that and about how hard it was for those staff. I accepted that but I also said that there had to be more and that there needed to be a concrete acknowledgement. The company has provided a pathway for people to get information on whether they received a vaccine from the records GSK holds. I indicated that, while that is welcome, it does not go far enough. That continues to be my position.
I have also made the point that vaccine trials were not just happening in mother and baby institutions and county homes. They were happening in some industrial schools and other residential institutions. Non-consensual vaccine trials were also happening in the community. As I have said to Senator Boyhan previously, I am happy to continue to work with him to see whether there is some way to advance this issue by means of a State response to these non-consensual vaccine trials but I do not believe this Bill is the correct avenue for that. It never could be because it only deals with mother and baby institutions and county homes and the issue the Senator speaks so passionately about, these trials, was not just confined to such institutions. Senator Boyhan knows there was an attempt to go as far as a tribunal, which is one of the most serious steps the State can take, but that this was torpedoed. I deeply regret that. It could potentially have provided the answers the Senator and so many other people seek. As I have said, I am happy to work with the Senator to see what the next steps forward are but I do not believe they can be manifested in this particular Bill.
On amendment No. 41, the State absolutely takes its responsibility to investigate and address historic wrongs and allegations of human rights violations extremely seriously. Since 1999, the State has undertaken investigations into allegations of abuse in a range of institutional settings. These investigations have sought to establish facts with regard to the operation of these institutions and the treatment of residents within them. As the Senators will know, with particular regard to mother and baby homes and county homes, when the Taoiseach delivered his apology in January 2021, he specifically referenced the additional impact on children of mixed race in these institutions and mentioned the "additional impact which a lack of knowledge and understanding had on the treatment and outcomes of mothers and children with different racial and cultural heritage". It was important that the State apology recognised the additional impact on those of mixed race who passed through these institutions. If, at any point, a ruling comes in from CERD or any other international body that requires some changes to this legislation or other legislation, the State will respond. The State has always responded when international human rights committees have made negative findings against Ireland. If it happened at a time when I was Minister, I would certainly respond. I would expect that any future Minister would give the same response.
With regard to forced family separation, the Government absolutely recognises the fact that, during the lifetime of these institutions, pregnant women faced great barriers, from stigma to a lack of financial support and family support, which left them little or no choice regarding their decision to give their child up for adoption. All of us know, from speaking to mothers who were in these institutions, the range of reasons they felt they had to give their child up for adoption. That is why I believe the approach of the single payments scheme is the right approach. We all know how deeply traumatic those experiences were for the mothers and former residents we have spoken to. To be a recipient of this particular scheme, mothers do not have to speak about that particular experience. They just have to demonstrate, through the records, their residence for a certain period of time.
We know that these adoptions happened over decades because of direct, emotional or financial pressures. If we create the twin-track approach the Senator speaks about and if there is a second element that requires some degree of proof to be presented, that proof will have to be evidenced. I am sure the Senator would argue that we would not use a civil standard and that we would use a lower standard. Legislation could provide for that but it would still have to be evidenced. There is risk associated with creating a twin-track system in which everyone gets something but those with evidence of something worse happening to them get a greater payment because only those with that requisite evidence could benefit from that additional stream. The experience from other systems is that, where people were in a scheme that required an element of evidence, particularly when they were not able to meet the standard set, they were deeply retraumatised. I worry about creating a two-tier system and the legislation giving the possibility of getting more to recognise people's specific situations and people then not being able to provide the relevant evidence because of a lack of time or because the people who were in the room have passed away. That is a very real possibility. I accept that others disagree with that but there is a fundamental risk in creating a two-tier system in which evidence is required. Under the process as set out at the moment, all an individual has to demonstrate is that the records show that he or she was in the institution at the time in order to be eligible for a payment.
It is important to note that the amendments we brought forward the last day in the second grouping seek only to protect the existing policy and the existing remit of the scheme. There is no potential in the amendments we brought forward to reduce eligibility for the 34,000 people we believe are eligible. A person who spent at least one night in one of the listed institutions as a mother will be eligible for the general payment. This remains the case after the adoption of the amendments. The schemes were only ever designed to apply to those who were in mother and baby institutions and county homes. The amendments only seek to provide necessary clarity around the terms and purposes of these institutions. Again, there has been no narrowing of the ambit of the scheme. We believe that, when those amendments are in place, 34,000 former residents, both mothers and children, will continue to be eligible for the scheme.
I will make a few brief points. Nearly all that can be said on the issue has been said, but I will pick up on a few small points. The forced family separation piece is not only about people giving evidence to get additional payments. Some people, despite not being registered as having been in the county home for one night, still experienced forced family separation because of these institutions. Under this scheme, such people will not be able to get payment. In recognising forced family separation, we recognise that the institution does not just mean the four walls. It is bigger than that. Political institutions are made up of several houses. With regard to co-location on sites, when we refer to mother and baby institutions, we do not just mean the physical space, we mean everywhere the institutions' arms reached into. Last week's amendments narrow eligibility because, where people experienced forced family separation on co-located sites, they will not be eligible because they did not spend a night in what is considered a county home. We are referring to institutions, but what is the definition of "an institution"? We must understand what that definition is. It should include all buildings within an institution, which would allow those who experienced forced family separation to be included.
On the wording, I refer to aspects such as financial pressures, lack of family support and all the other reasons and then saying that this somehow led to a decision that women had to give up their children. The point is we are referring to "forced family separation". In many cases, there was no decision. It was not that women were deciding with a full understanding of the context of their lives. A decision is not being made in respect of forced family separation. This issue is bigger and broader than saying women decided that they had to give up their babies.
Regarding GSK, I understand there has been engagement with the company in the context of the power, ability or capacity the Minister has in the context of big pharma or private entities. Ensuring that this legislation provides that a report will be undertaken examining important parts of this issue may mean there could be other ways for the State to force action in this regard, perhaps through a medical negligence tax, for example. There are other ways to be able to go after private industries. These approaches may not necessarily be in this legislation, but we could use it as the catalyst to be able to have a report compiled on these institutions, private entities or pharmaceutical companies that can lead to greater change in this area. I will not add anything more. Enough has been said on the issue now.
Does the Minister wish to say anything further?
I accept the point the Senator is making in terms of forced family separation and I accept what she is saying about choice. We have spoken to people where an adoption was a decision and we have also spoken to people where an adoption was not a decision. I accept the Senator's point in this regard, therefore, and I thank her for providing clarity.
Ultimately, this legislation seeks to bring forward a redress scheme for this grouping of institutions, namely, the mother and baby and county home institutions. I recognise that in the history of adoption and forced family separation, this happened in other contexts as well. It happened in traditional, mainstream hospitals that were not in any way colocated with a mother and baby institution or a county home and I recognise this legislation is not covering these contexts.
I go back to the fact that what we have been given a mandate to hear is to recognise the mother and baby and county home institutions. The State is trying, piece by piece, to recognise what happened in institutions. Many people will argue this is not happening fast enough or broadly enough, but we are bringing forward a comprehensive proposal that recognises the experience of 34,000 people in the context of this specific legislation. We are also looking to do more for others in respect of the other measures we are bringing forward, whether these concern birth information, the advancement of the national records and memorials centre or the institutional burials legislation. As I have said several times during this debate, this Bill represents one part of the State's response.
Amendments Nos. 15 to 17, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 14, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"Report on extension of eligibility for general payment under Scheme
19. (1) The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the potential to extend eligibility under section 18(1) for a general payment to all relevant persons who were resident in a relevant institution for any period of time, including those who were resident for less than 180 days.
(2) A report under this section shall include a breakdown of the number of persons who applied to the Scheme and were deemed ineligible as a result of the 180 day residency requirement, and the cost to the Exchequer of extending eligibility for the Scheme to include those persons.".
I second the amendment.
As the Minister knows, we are not allowed to amend the Bill to directly delete the minimum 180-day residency requirement for survivors to qualify for general payment under the scheme. As a compromise, this amendment No. 15 once again calls for a report on the potential to remove the 180-day residency requirement. It also calls for the Minister to examine how many applied to the scheme within the 12 months and were deemed ineligible specifically because of the 180-day residency requirement. It is to be hoped this second part has been addressed by Government amendments Nos. 42 and 43, and we received assurances around this in last week's debate.
I will reiterate the points that were made on Committee Stage, because this is another core injustice and omission in the redress scheme. Until this exclusion is removed, it is impossible to support the scheme. If a child, regardless of what they suffered or experienced in a home, happens to have spent less than six months in that home, they will receive no redress under this Bill. It is indefensible. As we have heard repeatedly, this provision alone will exclude 24,000 survivors from redress. What is most appalling about this is that the entire scheme has been built upon this length of stay criterion. Nothing else about a survivor's experience is accounted for - not the loss of their family, abuse, or anything. The Government has reduced it to pure mathematics, and then to add insult to injury, it has put an arbitrary line in the sand where anyone who falls below the six-month line simply gets dumped out of the scheme.
It is deeply wrong to suggest that a child who spent less than six months in a home would not have been severely harmed by their experience, given that their stay often involved forced family separation, which echoed throughout their entire lives.
As Senator Higgins highlighted on Committee Stage, the high child mortality rate in places like Bessborough should be enough evidence that infants who spent any amount of time in the home are likely to have suffered adverse health impacts. A child who spent any of their early months in any home needs to be included in the redress scheme. Most galling is that the Government has declined to give an answer to the survivors, who engaged in the process in good faith, as to why they will be excluded. The Government does not have the courage to admit the truth of this decision, which is that this is penny-pinching. It is a hard-hearted, cold, cost-saving exercise. It is cruelty heaped upon cruelty.
The length of stay criterion goes directly against the recommendations of the OAK report, which was the result of a consultation process with hundreds of survivors. The recommendations of the report could not have been more clear, with 64% of survivors agreeing forced family separation should be among the criteria determining the amount of redress received, while 61% agreed psychological trauma should be a factor.
Amendment No. 16 calls for a report on the potential to extend eligibility under section 18(3) for a work-related payment to all relevant persons under paragraph (b) who were resident in a relevant institution for any period of time, including those resident for less than 90 days. The exclusion is unconscionable. There is nothing in the scheme to account for abuses suffered in the course of work and nothing to differentiate between types of work or provide additional redress for the horrible conditions faced by those working in the homes or for the gruelling nature of that work. The only criterion is the length of residency. It adds insult to injury to say if a person only worked for 90 days, it does not constitute a harm great enough to warrant redress. This is especially unfair given survivors have no avenue to appeal for more redress based on their different experiences of work in the institutions. This is because there is no second track as the Government refuses to provide it. For people who sustained lifelong disabilities or physical injury from the type of work required of them, there is no additional redress. I am saying a “two-track system”; the Minister referred to a “two-tier system”. There is a slight difference between the two. It is about capturing that gruelling work and the complexity of the psychological trauma that has been spoken about. Sometimes redress has to match the person’s needs and the complexities of their lives and what they endured. The work someone engaged in can massively impact how they have been able to work for the rest of their lives and their health. How can this be justified when the scheme remains blind to what was experienced or suffered within those 90 days? This goes against the OAK report.
Amendment No. 17 calls for a report to be laid before:
both Houses of the Oireachtas on the potential to extend eligibility under section 18(4) for provision without charge of health services, specified in paragraphs (a) to (h) of section 34(3) to all relevant persons who were resident in a relevant institution for any period of time, including those who were resident for less than 180 days.
The amendment is about removing the minimum 180-day residency requirement for a survivor to qualify for an enhanced medical card under the scheme. The exclusion is indefensible. Senator Higgins repeatedly pressed these points on Committee Stage and this is one I am particularly shocked the Government has not moved on. It would have been a simple matter on Report Stage to bring an amendment to remove this desperately unfair exclusion. It has no basis in medical evidence or the historical reality of the institutions. The only possible explanation is cost saving. It is especially astonishing in the light of the tens of billions in budget surplus we are projected to have in the coming years.
We know the worst effects of psychological and physical trauma sustained by people in these homes often happened in a short space of time. In particular, the extremely harsh conditions of child birth and the actively cruel practices in the homes in relation to child birth meant enormous lifelong psychological and physical trauma was sustained by mothers within a few hours of entering the home. The idea only those resident for longer than six months would need additional health support is deeply wrong and dishonest about the nature of what happened in the institutions.
I raise the example I raised on Second Stage, which I came upon in the confidential committee report, concerning the deliberate denial of pain relief to mothers giving birth in the institutions:
...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.
We know enormous trauma was inflicted on survivors in a very short space of time and the health effects of this physical and psychological trauma were lifelong. The infant mortality rate in the homes was astonishingly high, which indicates any children who spent a short time there may have suffered malnutrition, physical abuse and other lifelong health impacts. We cannot exclude survivors from health supports on the basis of length of stay. The clearest solution is to provide the enhanced medical card to every person who spent any time in these institutions. It is within the Government’s power to grant this and I am at a loss to understand why it would not. Today I can only think of the survivors who engaged in good faith with the scheme and are in anguish wondering why they again face this coldness. There are a huge cohort of survivors being told their experiences do not matter or were not real. This is what the scheme says to those who spent less than six months in the institutions.
I was 15 when I gave birth, and in a different lifetime I could have been in this situation. I also had an extremely difficult birth with my first child. Only in the last weeks, because of that difficult birth and stuff they did not pick up on, I have lost an ovary. That is 23 years in which a decision in a delivery ward can leave you in pain. I have been in pain for 20-odd years, to the point where it is starting to manifest in different ways. I think of the health implications. I was not even in this situation and what they experienced would have been more traumatic. I had a lovely supportive mother beside me trying to help me through it. I nearly bled to death giving birth the first and second time because of the complications. I know the lifelong health conditions women will be left with from birth alone, never mind birth in conditions when they have been denied the care they needed.
This amendment has taken on new significance since last week’s debate. We thought the legislation was bad in parts when it left the Dáil due to the exclusion from medical supports of those who spent less than six months in the homes and other exclusions. It seems to have got worse since the Government’s amendments Nos. 5 and 7, which leave it unclear whether a certain cohort of mothers will qualify for the scheme. Not only will this cohort who were in the homes primarily to give birth not receive medical supports, it seems they may now be excluded entirely from the scheme, not even able to claim a general payment. This needs to be reversed. There is still time for the Government to reconsider this.
I thank Senator Ruane for her amendments. I fundamentally disagree with the argument she is making that a scheme requiring evidence to be brought forward and risking the retraumatisation of survivors is preferable.
We know from international experience and domestically from people who have used the mechanisms, such as the residential institutions redress scheme, that individualised schemes have been harshly criticised by survivors who had to use those processes and especially that requirement to provide evidence. I accept there is a difference of view there. I believe that a scheme whereby accessibility to the benefits of the scheme are achieved through the length of time spent there with no more required to be proved is vastly preferable to asking survivors to give evidence. Even if it is a two-track, two-tier or a twin approach, an additional approach opens the possibility of more but it has to be evidenced in some approach. If it is going to be an additional approach, it will be difficult to achieve that evidential burden and particularly in light of the length of time and the span of time we are dealing with in many of these cases. Having opened to people the prospect of additional benefit, it may then be closed to them. I do not think that is the right way to proceed. I accept that Senator Ruane and other Senators have a different view.
I am not in a position to accept the amendments. I spoke to very similar amendments on Committee Stage. I recognise that the time period has been changed within them. Again, as I said in response to our last amendment, I really believe that this legislation and any reports written on foot of it, must be based on what this legislation has covered and must be within the agreed scope of this particular scheme. As the Senator articulated, the amendments seek reports on the potential to extend the eligibility for the scheme with regard to the general payment and the enhanced medical card for those who were resident in a relevant institution for less than 180 days, and with regard to the work-related payment for those who were resident in the relevant institution for less than 90 days. I have set out the reasoning behind the non-adversarial approach that is based on access to the scheme.
As the scheme is set up, the focus must be on answering and delivering for the tens of thousands of people who will apply to this scheme. This is why I believe all those working in the executive office should be focused on operating the scheme and making sure that as quickly as practicable we can get applications in and that they can be assessed, and if extra information is needed or if there are no records of that particular person, then the affidavits can be sought. I believe this to be the best focus. We must remember that any of these amendments can be made in the future. This legislation can be amended and legislation can be changed, as we all know. For now it is important to get this scheme up and running, get this legislation passed, get the scheme operational, and allow the benefits of the scheme to be available to the 34,000 people we estimate can benefit from it.
With regard to evidence, for many of us, it is not about evidence and creating some sort of really difficult system for people, it is also about recognition of their testimony. It goes without saying that there will be people when they apply, no matter what the application processes look like, who will want to continue to tell what happened to them. Sometimes, that alone is evidence enough - someone's personal testimony, including around the racial abuse and the vaccine trials. It is not creating this really difficult and burdensome process that is being proposed. A two-track system would not be proposed at all if the redress was adequate. As the redress is so low, at €5,000, we know that people with complex needs are not going to be able to use that to meet some of their additional needs, whether they are psychological needs or around disability, literacy or whatever it is. If the redress was larger there would be no need for this. As it is such a low rate, we are trying to find ways to create a situation where people left with more complex needs can find a way to be able to have them met. In relation to their access to healthcare, they were set something else whereby it became adversarial for them. The other point is to create the time criteria and to create a non-adversarial position, but then the adversarial position is being created by saying that if a person was in a home for less than six months, he or she does not qualify for those additional benefits. Again, there seems to be a double use of particular things that are used differently in different sections of the Bill. No matter how long they spent in the homes, everybody should have access to medical cards. That is addressed in the last amendment in this group. There is a lack of coherence between the principles that underpin different sections of the Bill that provide for a benefit.
I will speak to the point about testimony and the value of people's testimony. I agree with that point. This is why I have set out that with the records and the memorial centre we are looking to create a facility where people can give their lived experience and can ensure that it is kept on the historical record. We are looking to initiate it with the people who gave testimony before the confidential committee but I believe it should be open to everyone who wishes, irrespective of whatever trauma they experienced. If they want it on the record, they should be able to do it. We are looking to provide for that with the records and memorial centre we are working to bring forward. In the context of those stories being visible and being part of an active history rather than just being on the dusty record of some tribunal, more can be done in making those testimonies visible and part of the history of what happened in these institutions.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 14, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“Report on extension of eligibility for work-related payments under Scheme
19. (1) The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the potential to extend eligibility under section 18(3) for a work-related payment to all relevant persons who were resident in a relevant institution for any period of time, including those who were resident in institutions for less than 90 days.
(2) A report under this section shall include a breakdown of the number of persons who applied to the Scheme and were deemed ineligible as a result of the 90 day residency requirement, and the cost to the Exchequer of extending eligibility for the Scheme to include those persons.”.
I second the amendment.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 14, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“Report on extension of eligibility for provision without charge of health services under Scheme
19. (1) The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the potential to extend eligibility under section 18(4) for provision without charge of health services specified in paragraphs (a) to (h) of section 34(3) to all relevant persons who were resident in a relevant institution for any period of time, including those who were resident for less than 180 days.
(2) A report under this section shall include a breakdown of the number of persons who applied to the Scheme and were deemed ineligible as a result of the 180 day residency requirement, and the cost to the Exchequer of extending eligibility for the Scheme to include those persons.”.
I second the amendment.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 14, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“Report on recognition of experiences of mixed-race children
19. (1) The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the potential to extend the Scheme to recognise the experiences of mixed-race children in Irish institutions.
(2) A report under this section shall consider—
(a) the potential to extend eligibility for both payments and provision without charge of health services under this Act to persons who, as mixed-race children, were segregated from a mother and baby institution in Schedule 1, and placed in any other institution in respect of which a public body had a regulatory or inspection function, either directly or from another relevant institution in Schedule 1, for any period of time, and
(b) the potential to make provision for supplementary payments, in addition to any entitlement under this section to a general payment or work-related payment under this Act, to relevant persons who were subjected to historic racial discrimination or abuse, either while resident in a relevant institution, or while placed in any other institution in respect of which a public body had a regulatory or inspection function, either directly or from another relevant institution.”.
I second the amendment.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 14, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“Report on provision of additional payments to those who experienced medical experimentation
19. The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the potential to make provision for supplementary payments, in addition to any entitlement under this section to a general payment or work-related payment under this Act, to relevant persons who were subjected to non-consensual or illegal vaccine trials or any other medical experimentation while resident in a relevant institution, which shall include analysis of legal options to require pharmaceutical companies involved in such medical experimentation to contribute to the cost of such payments.”.
I second the amendment.
As it is now past 9 p.m., the debate must be adjourned in accordance with the order of the House today. When is it proposed to sit again?
Tomorrow morning at 9.30 a.m.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
