Dáil Éireann Debate, Friday - 3 December 2021
2. Deputy Holly Cairns asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth the way the proposals for the payment rates of the mother and baby institutions payment scheme were arrived at. [59652/21]
View answerHow were the proposals for the payment rates under the mother and baby institutions payment scheme arrived at? One of the most disgraceful aspects of the Government's redress scheme for survivors of these institutions is the payment rates. Mothers who spent less than three months in an institution are to receive a mere €5,000. These women could have endured human rights violations such as forced family separation and abuse. Given that many of the proposed payments are contrary to the consultation with survivors, will the Minister please outline how these payment rates were arrived at?
In developing the proposals for the Government, extensive thought was given to how best to structure a fair and sensitive payment scheme for survivors of mother and baby institutions. I asked an interdepartmental group to develop proposals for a scheme and to make recommendations for the overall approach to the payments as well as potential payment rates. With regard to the payment approach, the group strongly advocated for a general approach based on time spent in these institutions rather than individual assessments.
This is because of the stakeholder view that any scheme should be non-adversarial with a low burden of proof, and the national and international evidence that a general payment is the best way to achieve that.
This approach eliminates the requirement for applicants to bring forward evidence of abuse to demonstrate an entitlement or undergo any cross-examination of this evidence which by its nature can be adversarial and retraumatising. Their experience is still, however, recognised through a payment structure which also takes account of more prolonged institutional experiences.
With these important considerations in mind, the group proposed a general payment with a schedule of payment rates similar to the approach taken for the Magdalen restorative justice ex gratia scheme. The payment rates rise in increments of €5,000 per year in recognition of the prolonged experience of the women and children who spent longest in these institutions. A separate work-related payment is also being provided for those women who undertook what could be termed as commercial work in these institutions.
Of course, as we have all recognised, no financial payment or service provision could make up for the pain and suffering endured by so many people in mother and baby institutions. This is acknowledged by the interdepartmental group, a point I have made many times. The general payments are being made in recognition of time spent in these institutions, harsh conditions, emotional abuse and other forms of mistreatment, stigma and trauma.
It is important to note that the payment scheme stands alongside the 21 other actions the Government has pledged as part of the action plan to recognise the experiences of women and children in mother and baby institutions.
The Minister did not answer the question of how the Department arrived at the rate of potentially €5,000 for forced family separation. The proposed scheme is deeply flawed in many ways. The startling inadequacy of the proposed payment amount stands out. It is still unclear how these rates were decided. The figures suddenly appear in the interdepartmental group's report which was chaired by an official from the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. A group of civil servants sat down and devised these rates. Survivors and the public deserve to know how that happened. What, if any, consideration was given to the scale of abuses, the trauma and the years of stigma and hostility from the State? Did anyone on the interdepartmental group have any qualifications in psychological trauma or transitional justice? All those questions remain unanswered. I ask the Minister to tell the House if he is happy that a woman, who endured the cruelty of the mother and baby institution system, was separated from her child and many other things, will receive as little €5,000.
Based on what I said a few moments ago and what I said when the scheme was announced, I have always been clear that I and the Government recognise that no amount of money can make up for what happened to women and children in these institutions. I think I have been clear on that. We understand that a payment scheme and the range of actions we are taking cannot make up for the trauma that was experienced in these institutions. However, it is a recognition of what happened. It is an attempt to provide some element of support to survivors, be they mothers or children, of these institutions. It is the State coming in behind the apology the Taoiseach made in January of this year. That is what we are seeking to do in providing this broad payment scheme that will encompass 34,000 survivors of these institutions.
In my further response I will speak about the payment rates.
I agree with the Minister that no amount of money could compensate for it, but €5,000 is an insulting amount. One would get more in a compensation claim for a slip or a fall. The Department ran a consultation process inviting survivors to participate and many of them found the strength to do so in good faith. Why then were so many of their recommendations for redress ignored? The survivors called for an immediate interim payment, enhanced pension or periodic payments and additional sums, based on separate categories of harm suffered. All that was ignored and none of them features in the scheme. The interdepartmental group's report cruelly dismisses some of them. Most disgracefully for this horrific topic, the perspective of civil servants is being given greater weight than that of survivors. Again, the State is deciding what happens and what is best for them, ignoring what they said.
This was clearly an actuarial exercise, more concerned with budgets than trauma, acknowledgement of human rights violations or providing justice for survivors. Again, their voices have been ignored. The redress scheme is informed more by the opinion of civil servants than the experience of survivors. How can we stand over it in good conscience?
I do not believe it is an actuarial exercise. If that were the concern, the Government could have tried to rely on the recommendations from the commission which were much narrower. We could have tried to rely on the recommendations of the interdepartmental group which were much narrower. However, the Government did not do that. We went significantly beyond what the commission recommended. We went significantly beyond what the interdepartmental group recommended. It would have applied financial payments to 19,000 survivors. We are applying financial payments to 34,000 survivors.
The rates are similar to those used in the Magdalen redress scheme, using the criteria of years spent in an institution. As the Deputy correctly said, for short periods of less than three months' the rate is €5,000 and for those who were there for ten years, it is €60,000. It is a sliding scale based on the scale used in the Magdalen scheme.
