Institutional Burials Bill 2022: Second Stage

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

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

I am pleased to bring the Institutional Burials Bill 2022 before the House. This legislation will provide us with a legal basis to finally exhume the remains of children so tragically interred at the site in Tuam, reunite them with their loved ones and afford them a dignified burial.

What happened at Tuam is a stain on our national conscience. Since coming into this role I have met with many of the families affected. In those meetings I have heard that sense of urgency and frustration around why exhumation has not yet happened and I share that frustration. These families want to give their loved ones the respect and dignity they were so grievously denied in their short lives. The uniquely tragic nature of the site at Tuam means legislation is required to undertake this work. This will be one of the most complex forensic excavation and recovery efforts ever undertaken, not only in Ireland but anywhere in the world. While Tuam will be the first such excavation and exhumation, I am conscious there are concerns about other sites, like Sean Ross Abbey and Bessborough.

Since the general scheme was published it has been scrutinised by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth chaired by Deputy Funchion, as well as other stakeholders. I thank the Chair and all members of the committee for the detailed pre-legislative scrutiny, PLS, report they produced. I also thank those who engaged with the committee and those who have spoken with me directly for their constructive engagement on this legislation.

In response to the PLS report and the wider feedback I have made significant changes to this legislation. Among these, I want to briefly draw attention to three key improvements, namely, we have removed the restriction on the jurisdiction of the coroner, the legislation now requires that the forensic investigation must be done to international standards and we have increased the transparency and accountability by increasing involvement for stakeholders like family members and former residents of institutions.

I will now outline the key parts of the Bill as initiated. Part 1 contains the standard Short Title, commencement and interpretation provisions. Section 2 provides definitions of key terms used in the Bill. A central term is "forensic excavation and recovery". This means the excavation of the land and the recovery and treatment of human remains in a manner sufficient to satisfy legal requirements regarding the use and storage of evidence in connection with the identification of human remains, including in criminal proceedings.

Part 1 sets out the procedures for the service of documents and provides that it will be an offence to interfere with, or obstruct, the work of the director of an intervention or to use samples or DNA profiles generated in connection with an identification programme for unauthorised purposes.

Part 2 provides that the Government can consider a proposal by a relevant Minister to intervene at a site where manifestly inappropriate burials have taken place of persons who died while ordinarily resident in that institution. Where the Government is satisfied an intervention is necessary for the purposes of safeguarding important objectives of public interest, it can direct that Minister to establish an office of a director of authorised interventions.

The Minister will appoint a director to oversee the intervention and an advisory board to support and guide the director in the role. The director will be required to conduct a forensic-standard excavation, recovery and post-recovery analysis of human remains. He or she will be empowered to employ or contract the range of expertise and disciplines needed to discharge these functions to international best practice standard at a particular site. The director will also provide updates on the work of the office to relatives of persons believed to be buried at the site, other stakeholders and the general public. The director may also be required to undertake a DNA programme of identification. This is intended in the case of Tuam. The advisory board will provide advice and guidance to the director.

The board will be chaired by a former coroner or someone with coronial expertise and will include scientific experts and - this is important - former residents, family members connected with a particular institution, or both. Consultation with the advisory board will be required at regular intervals, including at key decision points during the intervention. The addition of an advisory board responds to a number of recommendations made during the PLS process to enhance transparency and accountability, as well as to ensure meaningful engagement with families and with survivors.

Part 2 also provides that a director can obtain information and documents from publicly-funded bodies and other persons to assist in the performance of his or her functions. Importantly, a director can also obtain information from Tusla that is contained in the database and related records of the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes. It is an offence for persons to disclose confidential information obtained while performing their functions under the legislation. This provision has been enhanced in response to PLS recommendations to give the director the power to compel, rather than simply request, the production of the information or documents concerned.

Part 3 of the Bill provides for the forensic excavation, recovery and post-recovery analysis of human remains to be carried out by appropriately-qualified persons in accordance with international standards and best practice. It provides that remains that are recovered will be sorted into individual sets in as far as is possible, that forensic testing will be carried out to establish as much information about the individuals as possible, including the circumstances and causes of their death, and that the director of an intervention will publish a general report on the findings. This Part is another significant new addition to the general scheme that was published in December 2019. This change responds directly to issues raised during PLS about the need the need to address how people died. A director of an intervention will be required to inform An Garda Síochána and the relevant coroner where evidence emerges of a violent or unnatural death or where remains are not those of a person who died while ordinarily resident in an institution.

Part 4 provides the legal basis for a DNA-based programme of identification to be carried out in respect of remains recovered from an intervention site. The aim of an identification programme is to establish the likelihood that there is a familial link between people who believe they have family members buried at a site and the human remains that are recovered from that site and, where a familial link is established, to identify those remains.

In response to concerns raised by family members and other stakeholders, the provision for a pilot identification programme, which was contained in the general scheme, has been removed. Instead the Bill provides that an identification programme will proceed where there are living family members of persons believed to be buried at the site who wish to participate in a programme and where DNA of sufficient quality is available from the remains to enable DNA profile comparisons. The Bill also provides for a review mechanism, whereby a director can make a decision in relation to continuation of a programme based on the advice of Forensic Science Ireland and consultation with the advisory board.

DNA testing is, as we know, a very powerful tool which may reveal information about familial relationships to persons other than to the deceased relative that a person believes may be buried at a site. The legislation, therefore, has to balance the public interest of identifying remains buried in a manifestly inappropriate manner with the privacy rights of close living relatives. The general scheme sought to do this by limiting participation in an identification programme to parents, children, siblings and half-siblings of deceased persons and also by providing that the highest-ranking of those relatives had to provide consent or a person would be blocked from participating in the programme.

The PLS recommended expanding participation and removing the hierarchy in the general scheme. I have responded to these recommendations by providing a much more inclusive and flexible approach to the balancing of the rights involved. In summary, this Bill now expands the family members who are eligible to participate to grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews of deceased persons. There remains a provision for the closest living relative, that is, a parent, child or sibling, to object to the participation of another less closely-related person. However, it is important to note an objection does not automatically mean a second order relative cannot participate in an identification programme. Any objection will be considered by a director. The director must balance the closeness of the genetic relationship of the person who wishes to participate and, importantly, the public interest of identifying human remains.

The Bill provides that before an identification programme begins a director will hold a public information campaign to raise awareness about the programme and how eligible family members and spouses or civil partners of a deceased person can register an interest in participating; an objection to another person's participation; and also that they are interested in receiving remains if they are identified as family remains. They may also state their wishes in respect of the final arrangements for those remains. Again, this information campaign is newly-added into this draft.

The director will create and maintain a register to capture all of these notifications from eligible family members. The benefits of this register are that it should allow eligible family members to express their wishes at a very early stage in the intervention process and assist in supporting wide-ranging participation, while providing a mechanism to recognise the rights of close family members.

Importantly, in expressing an interest in participating in an identification programme, eligible family members can include a letter of support from relatives who would otherwise be able to object to their participation. The intention of these upfront letters of support is to help accelerate the process of approving an application to participate in an identification programme.

In circumstances where neither an objection nor a letter of support has been received from a closer living relative who would be entitled to object to a person's participation, the director may make reasonable efforts to contact that closer living relative to establish whether she or he wishes to register an objection to the person's participation in the identification programme. Given the significant privacy and data protection rights involved, the director is required to take these steps.

Where a person applies to take part in an identification programme, the director will first establish that the person is an eligible family member and has provided the required evidence of her or his relationship to the deceased person. The director must be satisfied that the person is fully aware of what is involved in the programme and is happy to participate. The director must give consideration to any objection from a closer living relative who may be entitled to object to a person's participation. The director will notify an applicant in writing of his or her decision as to whether that person may participate. Where the director notifies a person that she or he may not participate in the programme, the director will set out reasons for this decision. Importantly, a person whose participation has been rejected by the director can appeal the decision to an adjudicator established by the relevant Minister. Where a person is notified that he or she may participate in the programme, that person is therefore known as a "relevant person" for the purposes of this Bill.

The Bill provides for participants in an identification programme to nominate up to two people to be notified of the outcome of a familial matching process in the event that they die or become incapacitated before the outcome of the DNA identification programme is complete and where there is no other relevant person in respect of the deceased person. Those people can receive remains where they have been identified.

The DNA identification programme will involve taking samples from the human remains recovered from the site and relevant persons. My understanding is that this will entail an oral swab. Forensic Science Ireland, FSI, will generate DNA profiles from those samples and, at the request of the director, conduct DNA profile comparisons in respect of a relevant person to establish the likelihood of a familial link. The results will be notified to the director by FSI and the director will consider the results and any other relevant information and inform a participant as to whether, on the balance of probability, a familial link has been established. A finding that the data are not sufficient to suggest a familial link can be appealed to the adjudicator appointed by the relevant Minister.

The final arrangements for recovered human remains are considered in Part 4. The provisions in the Bill have been amended from those in the general scheme as a response to a number of the recommendations of the pre-legislative scrutiny report. The Bill now provides that, once identified, remains will be returned to family members or final arrangements will be made in line with their wishes. This is clearly stated in the Bill. Where identification of remains is not possible, final arrangements are similarly undertaken in line with the wishes of all those who consider they are family relatives of those interred at the site. A director will make arrangements as soon as practicable after a familial link has been established or where an identification programme has concluded.

In response to a pre-legislative scrutiny recommendation, and in order to facilitate potential developments in forensic testing, the Bill provides for the Minister to make regulations for further forensic testing of samples, subject to the consent of relatives, after an identification programme has been completed. In this regard, a prohibition on the cremation of remains that have not been identified has been included in the Bill so that they may subsequently be tested if scientific advances allow for such.

Part 5 provides for a director to acquire temporary rights of access to land required in order to undertake an intervention, with an obligation to provide reasonable compensation and to restore land to its original condition and use upon completion. The compensation amount will be calculated by a relevant professional and will take account of a number of relevant factors, including the period for which access is required, the extent of the works and the disturbance to a trade or a person's peaceful enjoyment of land. It is open to an landowner or occupier to challenge access to the land or the amount of compensation being offered. A challenge to the level of compensation does not affect the work and the director can carry out the intervention while the case is before the court. However, a challenge to access has the potential to delay the work of the director.

The primary access provided for in this Bill is to a principal burial site described as "principal burial land". Where the principal burial land is on residential land, access can extend up to the curtilage or 20 m, whichever is the lesser, of any dwelling on the land. The Bill also provides for access to residential land adjacent to the principal burial land where burials associated with burials on the principal burial site have taken place, described as "ancillary burial land". In this case, access does not extend further than 2 m from the boundary of the land or encroach on any dwelling on the land. Access can also be obtained to ancillary land where burials have not taken place but where access is required in order to facilitate works.

Part 6 contains provisions related to the dissolution of an office of a director. On dissolution day, all functions, assets, liabilities and records shall be transferred to the relevant Minister. It also provides that a director will prepare and submit a final report of the director prior to dissolution day. Following submission of this report, the relevant Minister shall, within 12 months, undertake a review of the implementation of the legislation in regard to that particular intervention. A report on the review will be published. The review mechanism is included in the Bill as a response to a pre-legislative scrutiny recommendation.

Before I conclude, it is important that I pay tribute to the work of all those who have worked to bring us to this point, in particular Catherine Corless. She became a voice for these children and the State owes her a great debt. What happened in Tuam is a stain on our national conscience. We can never erase the immense tragedy of what happened there, but this Bill will allow us, at long last, to afford the children interred at that site a respectful burial. It is long past time that we afford these children that basic dignity, which has been denied them for such a long time.

I urge Deputies on all sides of the House to work constructively with me to see this legislation passed promptly so that we can finally begin the vital work of honouring these children by exhuming their remains, identifying them, allowing the return of their remains to their loved ones and affording them a dignified burial. Everyone in the House is in agreement that this is the very least that we can do.

I commend the Bill to the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Funchion is sharing time with Deputies Clarke, Cronin, Ward and Buckley.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I thank the Minister for his contribution. We welcome this legislation. I wish to acknowledge all of the babies and children about whom we are speaking. Sometimes, there are no words to describe a tragic situation. As the Minister stated, we owe Catherine Corless a great debt of gratitude. She was actually in the Chamber for the pre-legislative scrutiny discussions. It was during Covid and, thankfully, we were able to open the Chamber up to a number of people. It was fitting that she had the opportunity to address our committee. I pay tribute to her and all of the advocacy groups.

There was an expectation during the general election. People had been invited to the pre-legislative scrutiny stage during that Dáil term and they had hoped that this legislation would be passed. As such, I am conscious of how much time has passed and how anxious everyone is to see this situation resolved.

I wish to acknowledge the considerable work that was done by the committee during our pre-legislative scrutiny.

Deputies Ward and Cairns who are here are also members of the committee along with others. This was the committee's first pre-legislative scrutiny. It took a long time. I sometimes wondered if we would ever get it all together, but we did. It is refreshing that some of the committee's recommendations have been taken on board. I hope I do not regret saying this but it is the first time I have engaged in a process where one can see the work being reflected back. This shows that when that process is done correctly and respected in the way it should be it can result in good and strong legislation. In all legislation, we should be listening to those who are affected by it or those who work in the area. Consultation is always key.

I acknowledge the role of the coroner and that jurisdiction is going to be maintained. That is really important. That came up time and again. It was a key concern for people. They were worried around potentially disallowing the powers of the coroner. We all know that that was really important so I welcome that. I would welcome some more information in regard to the 20 m rule. The Minister might provide more detail on that in his closing remarks. It is one of the issues about which since publication of the Bill we have been contacted by people. They are concerned that this might mean that there cannot be an excavation in certain areas. If may not mean that, but I would welcome more information on it. Given how near the Tuam site is many residential areas, will there be any negative affect arising in that regard? I would welcome more clarity and information on that.

Another concern brought to our attention was the criteria for an intervention. Some people are concerned that the criteria are still a little too rigid or strict. As with all aspects to do with mother and baby institutions and as has been acknowledged by the Minister in the past, there is a fear and a distrust among people. They are always thinking worst case scenario. I do not blame them for thinking that way because that has been their treatment at the hands of the State for decades. I would welcome some clarity in regard to the criteria and the 20 m rule.

I noted in the Minister's speech a reference to the family members and the hierarchy, which also arose in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. The Minister mentioned that there will be an appeals mechanism. I would welcome more information on how the Minister sees that playing out. On the chair of the board being a former coroner or having coronial experience, that is vital. It is really important that we have people who know all of the ins and outs and various pieces of this, that there is stakeholder engagement and that involved in that would be survivors and other people who are relevant to that process and the consultation with the family members.

I welcome the Bill and I am glad to note that many of the committee's recommendations from the PLS have been taken on board. I ask the Minister to address my concerns in regard to the criteria, the 20 m rule and, in particular, the criteria piece for other potential sites. People are afraid that if they come forward with real information on a particular site they will be told they do not fit the criteria. They are some of the fears. It is important to relay them to the Minister.

We welcome the Bill and we look forward to Committee Stage.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

This is another very significant piece of legislation to deal with those legacy issues from the horrific events of the mother and baby institutions. We support the introduction of this Bill primarily around that statutory basis and framework to authorise interventions at Tuam where manifestly inappropriate burials took place.

I have some concerns. The Minister touched on some of them, but some more information would definitely be welcome, particularly in regard to other sites, the role and function of the agency director, the 20 m distance mentioned by my colleague, Deputy Funchion, and the definition of what constitutes a relative. We know that children died in greater numbers in these homes at a much higher rate than was normal at the time. We know that they died of malnutrition, neglect and severe mistreatment and that they were cruelly discarded in unconsecrated grounds, septic tanks and mass graves. It is because we know this that the role of the coroner will be crucial in any and all investigations. There can be very little doubt that what happened in Tuam could most likely have happened in other institutions throughout the country. I have some reservations as to whether this legislation will sufficiently address those other sites. They too also deserve to be thoroughly investigated.

I would like to read into the record a quote from email that I am sure the Minister also received this afternoon from Breda Murphy, the PRO of Tuam Mother and Baby Home Alliance. She says:

The proposed legislation will outlive us to impact and dictate how we as a society/country treat our deceased who have not been afforded due rights at the time of death and subsequent burial or as in the case of Tuam, disposal of remains. The report to State by Dr. Geoffrey Shannon focused on the rights of the deceased continuing after death; the rights to a dignified burial and the rights of family to know of how their deceased loved one lost their lives.

As legislators, we have a responsibility to those who seek answers and pursue what is right that as technology and science advances we remain open to, when necessary, amend legislation to ensure it delivers that truth for those who seek it. Fundamentally, people want to know the detail and the context in which their loved ones died and to ensure they have a proper and dignified burial.

Deputy Réada Cronin

What we are discussing goes deep into the Irish psyche. The incarceration of girls and women and the forceable removal of their children is something we as a society carry to this day. This generation must undo the wrong done to them and so not pass this loss and trauma to another generation.

We support the introduction of this Bill. There are some good provisions within it. It shows what can be achieved when we work together in pre-legislative scrutiny. My colleagues put a great deal of work into this under the chairmanship of Deputy Funchion. It is really encouraging to see that so much of that work has been taken on board. It is important to acknowledge that.

I listened to the Minister's speech. There is still a bit too much vagueness in regard to the threshold sites will have to meet for thorough investigation, the precise role of the agency director, the distance requirement, the definition of what exactly constitutes a relative and the functions of the coroner. Coroners have a vital role to play in our society, not least when it comes to institutional burial. In north Kildare, we are blessed to have an outstanding coroner in Professor Denis Cusack. His compassion and tenacity when advocating for the people who died during Covid-19 was to be admired. I am concerned that in this Bill there is still a lack of clarity on the division of labour between the director and the coroner. There is equally a lack of clarity on the circumstances in which the director will involve the coroner. The coroner's involvement not being automatic or a given might be problematic not only for the families and relatives but for wider society given the weight and sensitivity and injustice of what is involved, what is being examined and what is supposedly being addressed in this Bill.

Irish children died in these places at a rate higher than in the rest of society. They died of neglect and hunger in their stomachs. They also died of skin hunger, a condition that affects babies who are not held, cuddled or touched. They died from lack of human affection. Hungry in body and soul they were then, in the case of Tuam, abandoned in a septic tank. This Bill must facilitate proper examination of all sites. If it does not, it adds insult to the injury of the death of innocents.

I acknowledge the work that has gone into this Bill and I welcome the Minister's acknowledgement of the work of Catherine Corless.

She has been a voice for those children and other groups. What happened in Tuam is a stain on our national conscience. This Bill is welcome and important.

Deputy Mark Ward

As the Minister was delivering his opening statement, I was thinking of some of the interactions I have had with him on other Bills in the past when my knuckles turned white with anger - not directed at the Minister but for the sake of the women and children who suffered in these mother and baby homes. It is refreshing to see some movement on this Bill. It is welcome.

The Minister and Deputy Funchion acknowledged the work that was done by the Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. Deputies Bacik and Cairns, who are members of the committee, are also present. The role the committee played was collegial and we were all pushing in the same direction. It is good that the Minister took many of the recommendations of the committee on board in the process of preparing the legislation. I wish to particularly mention the Chair of the committee, Deputy Funchion, who steered us through a difficult and emotive journey.

That said, I have a few concerns about the legislation, one of which relates to the role of the coroner. That was one of the key issues in the discussions of the committee and for the advocate groups. I welcome that the role of the coroner is now back in the process. I recognise that the Minister has restored the restriction on the jurisdiction of the coroner. That is important. However, there is still some uncertainty around the role of the coroner. This has already been said but I will say it again. We know that children died in large numbers in these homes. We know they died of malnutrition, neglect and severe mistreatment. We know that babies were cruelly discarded in unconsecrated ground, septic tanks and mass graves. However, we do not know if the role of the coroner in this Bill will be central to all investigations. That is something we need to know.

The test for interventions remains effectively the same as it was in the heads of the Bill. While I accept that the legislation as currently drafted may adequately address the circumstances around Tuam, I have serious misgivings about whether the legislation will, in fact, sufficiently address other mother and baby home sites. The criteria for intervention remain effectively the same as they were prior to pre-legislative scrutiny. Despite positive reports in the media, particularly relating to Tuam, survivors who have contacted me and advocates, and no doubt the Minister too, are apprehensive that the make-up of this legislation suggests that the director of authorised intervention will only investigate or exhume bodies if they are accessible and not within 20 m of a dwelling. That could be hugely problematic. We need to be genuine about pursuing a programme of restorative justice. We need more information on how the Minister thinks the 20 m rule and the role of the agency, in conjunction with the coroner, will work. Have all possible scenarios been worked out and legislated for?

The role and purpose of memorials at certain sites is still unclear. There is an indication that the new director could choose the memorialisation of certain sites over thorough investigation or exhumation. Will the new director be able to choose the option of memorialisation for certain sites? If the director can do that, what is the justification and what are the criteria set down for such a decision?

I thank all the witnesses and groups who sat before the committee and engaged with the process. I also thank every individual who has contacted me on a personal basis for informing me and telling me their very personal stories about this emotive issue.

Deputy Pat Buckley

I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. This is a fairly in-depth Bill. I thank everyone who was involved in this process. I have spoken in the Chamber many times. Sometimes we can work together and achieve great things. We are going in the right direction but, unfortunately, what happened in the past has brought us to where we are now.

Nearly 30 years ago, I worked with my dad. We worked on headstones, dug graves and whatever else. I remember exhuming 92 people from a convent graveyard a number of years ago. I know how sensitive it is for the relatives of those being exhumed. I know how strict it is. I also know how the county manager, county council, coroners and An Garda Síochána get involved. It is an in-depth process.

I am not here to knock the Bill. I genuinely believe we are going in the right direction. There is a sense of fear among the public but to be honest, who could blame them? That fear factor dates back generations, which is why we are having this discussion. I am familiar with the situation in Tuam and, especially, the situation in Bessborough in Cork. Every year, we go down there to meet survivors and listen to their stories. Unfortunately, the numbers are getting smaller each year. It is harrowing to hear those stories. All Deputies have heard personal stories.

I welcome the removal of the pilot programme because many concerns were raised about it. Balancing privacy rights and the public interest is very difficult. I am sure the legislation can be tweaked again in that regard.

The information campaign could be an asset. As can happen in any Department, if the public is left without proper information, the truth can get lost, the process can be broken and the fear factor can return. That fear then turns to suspicion and we are left in a position where nobody works with anybody else because of fear and suspicion. We do not want that. We need to push forward.

I am conscious of the survivors and family members watching this debate. Sometimes politics can be left at the door and we can work together collectively. As I have said before, we are legislators. We are servers of the people and we are supposed to work for them and their betterment. Sometimes we have to put down the hatchet and sit around the table to work together collectively to do the right thing.

I thank everybody who was involved in this process. This has been going on for a very long time. I congratulate all parties because we have done the right thing. Working together, it is possible at times to get things right. I will be watching the progress of the Bill. As I said, this is a happy day but also a sad day. We are discussing the past and what happened but, on the other hand, it is nice to be able to say that while the legislation might not be perfect yet, we are moving in the right direction. It is going to give solace and closure to the people affected. I hope this country will learn from the mistakes of the past and we will never have to see these things again.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

As we debate this Bill, the people of Ukraine are suffering the brutal invasion and bombardment by Russian forces. We are seeing the deaths of children and civilians. That makes us all reflect on the importance and privilege of being able to debate legislation in a debating chamber in a parliament in a peaceful democratic republic. We must all reassert the true value of democracy. The war in Ukraine reminds us all not to take that for granted. I wanted to preface my remarks with that. I know that feeling is shared across the House. I did not get to speak in the debate on Ukraine last night but I will be speaking later in the debate on Palestine with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and will express that view again. My colleague, Deputy Howlin, spoke passionately in support of, and in solidarity with, the people of Ukraine in the debate last night, as did many others in a genuinely cross-party manner. I acknowledge that.

I welcome the opportunity to speak for the Labour Party on this important Bill and to express our support for it. I express the sincere sympathies of the Labour Party and my colleagues to the survivors of Tuam and other mother and baby homes, and their families. I also pay tribute to the tireless work of Ms Catherine Corless who did so much to uncover the fact and true extent of the burials at Tuam. Her work has been crucial to the development of our knowledge on this issue.

Like other speakers, I have had immense levels of correspondence from constituents and survivors, who have been so courageous as to get in touch with us to share their personal stories and those of their families. I thank them for this because it really does enrich our knowledge and understanding as legislators when we come to look at Bills in this area. We legislators must, therefore, do right by survivors by ensuring the swift passage of legislation to address the outstanding issues that remain following the scandalous treatment of women and children in mother and baby homes throughout the 20th century, until as recently as the late 1990s.

I recognise the Minister's commitment to bringing this legislation forward swiftly. I also acknowledge the immense work of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, led by Deputy Funchion. I have been fortunate to work with her and colleagues on the committee in recent months. Indeed, we are engaging later this evening on amendments to the Birth Information and Tracing Bill. A great deal of work has been done by committee members, including Deputy Cairns and others, on the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill before us today. I thank my Labour Party colleague, Deputy Sherlock, who was our representative on the committee for that process. I acknowledge that the Minister, as he said, has made changes to the Bill in the light of some of the recommendations made by the committee. That is very important and welcome.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide a legal basis to enable some closure, finally, for survivors and the families of the children and babies who are buried at Tuam. Much of the Bill is technical, the aim being to create the statutory framework to enable exhumation and excavation to take place. The need for legislation was made clear upon publication of the report of the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes and certain related matters. On Tuam, we might reflect that the commission found there were 978 child deaths, 80% of them of children under a year old and 67% involving infants aged between one and six months. These are horrendous figures. We know the worst years were 1943 to 1947, when many of those deaths took place. It is very difficult to fathom the scale of what happened when we read the figures in the report but it becomes clearer when we think of each of those human stories and the impact on the mothers and families.

When the report was published, there was unity in this House in calling for its recommendations to be given effect as quickly as possible. I am conscious that many of those who have contacted us are older persons who are worried they may not be alive to see the culmination of the legislative process. It is important that we deal swiftly not only with this Bill but also the Birth Information and Tracing Bill, which, as I said, we are debating in committee later, and with establishing the new redress scheme. I look forward to working constructively with the Minister and on a cross-party basis to ensure this key package of legislative measures is brought into place as swiftly as possible, albeit that we need to ensure the proposals are given adequate legislative scrutiny.

I welcome the Minister's response to the report of the children's committee and the changes made as a result, including the removal of restrictions on the jurisdiction of the coroner and the alignment of the forensic investigative process with international standards. There are still some concerns being expressed to us by survivors that the language of the Bill may mean there are unnecessary limits placed on the coroner. It would be good to hear more about how that is being addressed in the Bill.

Another positive development is the expansion of the survivor engagement provisions. I very much welcome the expansion of family participation in DNA identification in particular. We need to ensure such engagement is not just expanded through legislative provision but also through the processes that are put in place. The Minister has spoken about the public information campaign, which is very welcome, but we need more detail about it and about mechanisms for the involvement and engagement of survivors and families. As we all would acknowledge, there have been some unfortunate breaches of trust with survivors, such as the manner in which details of the commission's report were leaked, for example, and the initial inadequacy of communications with survivors who did not or do not have access to IT. There also were issues around misrepresentations of testimony in the report. All of these issues can and should be addressed. The public information campaign is a very welcome measure in the Bill because it will provide a better framework for consultation and involvement of stakeholders and survivors.

We know a large number of people are affected by the issues dealt with in the Bill. A total of 56,000 mothers and 57,000 children passed through the mother and baby homes under investigation by the commission. Thousands more were resident in other institutions outside its terms of reference. We have spoken before in this Chamber about the shocking mortality rate for babies, not just at Tuam but also in the other institutions. It is shocking indeed that one in seven, or 15%, of babies, numbering 9,000, died before their first birthday in the homes covered by the report. Within the confidential committee section of the report, we learned of the true extent of abuse suffered by survivors, the widespread practice of forced labour and the extensive practice of coerced or forced adoption. We will be debating some of those issues at the committee this evening.

In this regard, I note the powerful contribution of Carmel Cantwell, who spoke to Brian O'Connell on the "Today with Claire Byrne" show yesterday about her experience. They discussed a map dating from the early 1950s that labelled a site in the Bessborough home as a children's burial site. That is worth mentioning because this Bill, as the Minister said, has import beyond Tuam, albeit the latter is the main focus. We are all very conscious of some of the revelations about Bessborough as well. This map labelled a particular site as a burial site but, listening to those who appeared on the show, it appears there was no physical or documentary evidence of burials at the site. This sort of discrepancy is very upsetting and concerning for families, who naturally will wonder what it means when there is a burial site marked on a map. It is the sort of issue that was taken up so powerfully by Catherine Corless. In her appearance on the programme, Ms Cantwell spoke about her brother, William, who died and was labelled as an unclaimed baby, despite this not reflecting the reality of their experience. This very powerful interview gave a name to, and identifying details about, just one of the babies who apparently died at Bessborough. As I said, when we look at figures, we can sometimes forget the individual, human stories behind them.

On the survivor engagement point, we are hearing from survivors and those affected, such as Ms Cantwell, that the voices of the mothers who went through the homes must be at the forefront and that all facets of the State response must be survivor-led. Is it possible to broaden the parameters of qualifying family members in the legislation to ensure they are as inclusive as possible, in recognition of the complexities of families, particularly in the context of how much time has elapsed since many of these deaths took place? I am conscious that we are all being contacted not only by people who were residents in homes but also those who may be cousins of babies buried there, for instance, or who know, through family folklore or history, that this happened. They should be brought within the scope of the legislation.

It is sensible that the Bill reflects the period examined by the commission but we are all conscious that there are concerns remaining about the exclusion of some survivors from the proposed redress scheme because they were incarcerated in institutions outside the remit of the commission institutions, such as Temple Hill, Westbank, St. Anne's, Cork, Mount St. Joseph's and others. We also know there are issues around qualifying criteria in the redress scheme, which we will debate in due course when the legislation is brought forward Again, I ask the Minister to consider broadening the scope of persons covered by that legislation. Indeed, I wrote to him last month to ask that he revisit the matter.

I am very glad to hear this Bill will not prevent future inquests or investigations into deaths at Tuam. While it is important that the primary focus of the Bill should be to give closure to families and reunite them, it is also important that we are careful not to repeat mistakes of the past, whereby survivors and families have felt re-traumatised when legislation has had the consequence of preventing them from seeking further justice or speaking out about the awful abuse they faced. I have in mind the residential institutions redress scheme, for instance, where that sort of gagging clause became very contentious and difficult for many survivors.

There are a number of other concerns about the legislation, which we may address further on Committee Stage. Advocates have lamented the retention of the controversial provision empowering Ministers unilaterally to decide whether a site is to be exhumed and investigated or if it will be subject solely to a process of memorialisation. There are differing views among families and survivors about different sites and which is the most appropriate process. The key issue is to ensure adequate communication with the families affected to avoid further distress to the many people who may be seeking different outcomes from legislative interventions on these sites. I would like to hear from the Minister about that difference between those who might prefer simply to see a site memorialised and those who wish to see it fully exhumed and excavated. These are difficult questions to address.

I would like to raise a specific question brought to me by the Separation, Appropriation and Loss Initiative, which notes that the redrafted Bill refers to institutional burial grounds and the definition of "institution" within section 2 relates to premises occupied by women or children or both. The Separation, Appropriation and Loss Initiative is asking whether this will cover illegal exhumations and reburials of women from institutions, which is another key point because we know that there may be scenarios that have, as yet, remained uncovered and that may need to be covered by this legislation. We are all conscious that Catherine Corless's tireless work uncovered so much that had been unknown or only guessed at previously and that there may still be further revelations to come. Without the key role that she played and that other historians and archaeologists have played, we would not know, for example, about reported burials in Bessborough or the horrendous mass grave uncovered at Tuam.

I want to again acknowledge Catherine Corless’s work and the work of other historians. In particular, I want to acknowledge Catherine Corless. Her work in taking out the death certificates of each of the 796 children who died at the Tuam mother and baby home gave rise to such a powerful sense of outrage at this evidence beyond doubt of a culture in which institutional and structural abuse of women and children was widespread throughout the country. The State owes her a great debt of gratitude. The Minister rightly said that what happened at Tuam is a stain on our national conscience and people like Catherine Corless have been so important in uncovering those stains. Throughout the past decades there are those who have shown incredible strength, resilience and determination in telling their stories. They have faced up to a powerful State and church that have been happy to maintain the status quo and culture of silence that we have often spoken about. I reiterate my gratitude and that of my Labour Party colleagues to those activists. I look forward to further debate on this Bill on Committee Stage.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

As I speak today I am mindful that it is Ash Wednesday, a day of repentance when Christians confess their sins and profess their devotion to God. I do not want to make this religious but I am acutely aware of the suffering that the families of the victims of those who have been buried have endured over the decades and that they still endure. The Minister acknowledged that and he understands it and we need to put that to an end as quickly as possible, while also recognising the suffering of the babies who were neglected and the babies who suffered at the hands of the State and the religious institutions. It must never happen again.

Above anything else, I want to acknowledge Catherine Corless and to express my deep gratitude to her for doing what she has done, for being Catherine Corless and for being the tenacious person she is. She is dedicated to justice and to getting justice for victims and families and without her, none of us would be standing here today. I also want to acknowledge all those who have contacted me and other Deputies individually and I acknowledge the families who have shared their stories with me. It is probably one of the most humbling experiences I have had as a politician. I want to acknowledge Sheila outside the gate, who many of us will know here from speaking to here every time she is here. She was out there in the rain today and she has suffered and tried to get the stories of victims across.

I welcome this Bill and we have an opportunity here to do the right thing. There are lots of good things in this Bill and I thank the Minister for that. I thank my colleague, Deputy Funchion, for the work she has done on behalf of Sinn Féin in the committee. Everybody has worked together to make this legislation what it needs to be. The families need to be front and centre of it and some of them have concerns. Some of those concerns have been addressed in the Minister’s contribution earlier on and I thank him for that but there are still some things outstanding such as the 20 m rule that was acknowledged. The Minister will understand that Bills can be legalistic and that they have to be written in a certain way. We need to make every effort to explain every line of the Bill. Some will be concerned at the number of times the word "may" is used in the Bill. Trust needs to be built up again and we need to listen to families at this point and whatever amendments need to be put in must be put in. One person who contacted me said that as this is the legislation that will be there for generations to come, we need to make sure that the families, victims and survivors are front and centre of all of that.

Deputy Holly Cairns

I want to acknowledge that today will be another difficult day for the survivors of mother and baby homes and other institutional systems. This is an extremely sensitive topic, which unfortunately is compounded by the timing of this session on the same day the Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth will discuss the Birth Information and Tracing Bill 2022.

Chrissie Tully, now 90 years old, recently described how as an 18-year-old, she was incarcerated in the Tuam mother and baby home and her son, Michael was stillborn. He was immediately taken away from her in the Central Hospital in Galway and Chrissie believes he is in the Tuam site. She is rightly angry and confused as to why this law is necessary. She said:

Legislation? For what? To open a grave full of dead babies? I never heard such nonsense. They don’t want to open the grave, that’s the truth. ... Where are the children? Where is my son? We’ve looked and looked. It’s like he never existed. ... What did they think the babies were? Would they like that done to their own? My son could be in the tank, he could be but we don’t know because they won’t open the thing. What’s the delay?

I have to agree with her and with her son, who I spoke to this week. I still cannot understand why we need this legislation. Why has the coroner not investigated known mass graves? Why has the Garda not investigated the thousands of recorded unnatural deaths in mother and baby homes and other institutions? This Bill comes after years of inaction and the refusal of the State and successive Governments to acknowledge existing laws and to provide justice. For example, we have the Coroners Act 1962, in which coroners are obliged to act if remains are found in their district or if somebody dies in State care or custody. This Bill goes some way to addressing these issues but it is still not aligned with transitional justice and international human rights standards.

The legacy of the Irish State's institutional past impacts individuals and families every day. Abuse, violations, and crimes continue to have real effects on people. Trauma, unrecognised injustice and stolen identities are living issues for thousands of people. This legacy is also embedded in the landscape in places where some of the worst crimes perpetrated by or facilitated by the State, often in conjunction with religious orders, occurred. Former mother and baby homes, county homes, industrial schools, psychiatric hospitals and other institutions have a deeply troubled past which we must come to terms with. Not only were these sites of incarceration, abuse and violence but they are also where people died in suspicious and unlawful circumstances. The scale and horror of Tuam forced action on this issue. The callous and criminal disposal of the remains of babies and children is still overwhelming. Even more disturbing is the reality that Tuam was not an isolated case. It is most likely the most severe example but we know of similar practices in other institutions. The State is compelled to act and Irish society needs a transitional justice approach to respond to the scale of this issue. Part of the process will be the challenging and painful excavation of known and suspected burial sites. We have a social and emotional aversion to disturbing burial grounds. However, the babies, children and adults who died in these institutions deserve graves, justice and to truly rest in peace. There is an obligation to investigate any and all deaths or inappropriate burials.

Although it is hard to understand why we need this legislation in the first place as I said, I welcome this Bill as hopefully and finally presenting a mechanism to respectfully respond to our cruel past. I also want to recognise the work of the committee and its Chair, Deputy Funchion, and I recognise the work of the Minister in taking on board some recommendations from the pre-legislative scrutiny. Some of the issues identified then have been addressed and the entire membership of the committee is grateful for that. I was especially relieved to see the removal of the restriction on the jurisdiction of the coroner, the strengthening of the role of the director and the expansion of the identification programme.

The care and attention given to this Bill by the committee contrasts with the Birth Information and Tracing Bill 2022, which we will discuss in committee later. Similarly, there still are several significant deficiencies in the Bill which the Minister needs to fix.

It must offer a robust and determined framework to provide justice without political or official interference. The State needs to ensure we effectively investigate unlawful or suspicious deaths, as well as allegations of torture or ill-treatment. The "Director of Authorised Intervention", as the new office is referred to in the Bill, must have the capacity and certainty to be able to intervene for all victims and survivors. It also must be able to support survivors and families in providing information about the disappearance, the fate of the disappeared person and the progress and results of any investigation.

My first and major concern is about the requirement to establish a separate director and office to intervene in each site, rather than establishing a standing body which has the capacity to examine any known or potential site.

On one level, this is a nonsensical approach. It is like setting up a separate police force for each individual crime, instead of a one for all crimes. A well-resourced office could build up knowledge and expertise in dealing with these highly sensitive matters. It could foster relationships with all stakeholders, especially survivors and family members. This would be more effective and reassuring for those affected. However, even more worrying is that this is a bureaucratic barrier. The Bill permits the Government, if a location meets a set of criteria, to set up an investigation of the site. This means that survivors, families, and campaigners will now be forced to advocate for interventions at known or suspected sites. Once again, the responsibility is being put back on survivors to ask for and seek justice.

It is safe to say there is no doubt that the Tuam site will be examined. It has to be. The national outrage and international headlines that forced the Government to act in 2014 have guaranteed that. What about the many other sites throughout the country? How many of those will be deemed eligible?

To quote from the Bill, "the Government may, from time to time, having considered a proposal made by a relevant Minister with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, by order" and in this context, "may" is the crucial word, as "shall" is the legislative language for something that will happen whereas "may" means it might happen. With everything we know about the horrors and abuse that happened in these institutions, the public outcries and the glaring need for truth and justice for survivors, the best the Government can say is that we might, in the future, do something about these mass infant graves. We might.

Perhaps even more restrictive is the line, "with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform". Here is the cold, cruel reality of this Bill. It is about money, not justice. Any intervention at a site must legally get the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. This hurdle is deeply troubling, given the Department’s position on the mother and baby homes redress scheme.

One of the major defects of the Government's proposed scheme is the highly insulting requirement for individuals to have spent at least six months as a child in a mother and baby home. Recent revelations show that officials in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform were central to this cruel stipulation. They were concerned with this precedent having "far-reaching policy and financial consequences", that is, giving redress to the survivors of the worst forms of human rights abuses may see other survivors seeking redress. That is not to mention the fact that they also think somebody should potentially get €5,000 for something like a forced family separation, when we all know one could get more for slipping on a pavement. Money is their main concern, not justice.

Then, they delayed the progress of the scheme. This is the Department that will now be given a veto on interventions at each and every site. Transitional justice or an obligation for truth are clearly not priorities for them. Survivors and campaigners have been scarred enough through interactions with the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and other Departments and bodies and now they will be obliged to jump through hoops for the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform as well.

Given all we know about mother and baby homes, illegal adoptions, other institutions and the treatment of survivors, the need for a separate office for each site is an intentional barrier that is contrary to transitional justice and human rights standards. Unfortunately, the Minister, so far, seems unwilling to acknowledge this point. The need to act on Tuam is pressing and highly necessary but this Bill will result in very few other sites being examined and it is hard to believe that is not its intention. I ask the Minister to give all survivors and their relatives the certainty of a standing independent office which has the capacity and commitment to intervene.

There are still too many conditions and restrictions. This is another barrier. The committee’s report focused strongly on enabling as many sites as possible to be included in the legislation and for the capacity of a State agency to examine these sites. We warned that a high volume of conditions and restrictions may prohibit the Government from acting to facilitate exhumations, examinations, identification and investigation. Unfortunately, this is very much the case with the current Bill. At all stages, the Bill should be orientated to facilitate survivors and their relatives. It should work in their favour to address historical and living injustices. Whether the people affected want an intervention at a site is a separate issue, but they should all be entitled to that option.

The most obvious restriction is that the register of manifestly inappropriate burials is still the primary criterion, while there is not the same emphasis on suspicious or unlawful deaths. The committee recommended that interventions at sites should give due consideration to suspicious or unlawful deaths, as well as the existence of inappropriate burials. We also recommended that the Bill include any burial site where the circumstances surrounding the death or body disposal method or both warrant an investigation as to their lawfulness. These elements are not properly present in the Bill. Human rights experts and those advocating a transitional justice model pushed strongly for these criteria. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties has strongly highlighted the State’s obligation to effectively investigate unlawful or suspicious deaths, as well as allegations of torture or ill-treatment. There needs to be a clear prioritisation of action because of suspicious or unlawful deaths, alongside what the Bill calls, "manifestly inappropriate burials".

Section 8 also contains restrictions on when an intervention can apply. The inclusion of the need to respect the views of the relatives of persons buried in the land is an important aspect which featured prominently in the committee discussion. It gives recognition of their role in the process. However, other restrictions are too vague and unnecessary, to the extent that they seem like intentional barriers. The provision regarding the "social and economic interests of the State" is the clearest example. What does it mean and what possible measure could be used to objectively measure that?

Economic interest means money, again. An intervention could be refused because of potential cost or the budget situation in any given year. This is an ambiguous and relational standard; one that is not compliant with human rights and transitional justice and has no place in law. The history of injustice surrounding this issue, and the refusal of state bodies to engage with survivors, give them basic information or recognise their rights at all combine to indicate that these criteria can and will be used to refuse interventions. It is also worth noting that this would be the State’s social and economic interest, not the people’s, and certainly not the survivors. The inclusion of "public health" is another ambiguous criterion and is ironic given our chronic underinvestment in that area. Similarly, archaeological features, which are regularly paved over for infrastructure projects, are being elevated in significance to prevent examinations of sites. Are we serious with these restrictions? An investigation and evacuation of a mass grave may be refused because it is near a standing stone. If this was not such a serious topic, it would be comical.

The Minister has to recognise these features for what they are; barriers. Outside of providing for the views of relatives and the dignity of the deceased, section 8(3) has to go. This Bill has to be about facilitating interventions, not putting more barriers in place for a group of people who have suffered oppression and injustice for all of their lives. The committee’s first recommendation is very clear. It states:

The focus of the Bill should be on victims and survivors and their rights. The Bill should not limit the extent to which the various sites can be investigated.

Currently, the Bill does not do this. There are multiple interconnected and reinforcing limitations.

The next point concerns a contradictory element in the Bill concerning justice for people who died in violent or unnatural circumstances. The Bill requires the director to inform An Garda Síochána and the coroner if a body is discovered with evidence of death in violent or unnatural circumstances.

This evidence can be assessed only if an intervention occurs, however. I outlined multiple obstacles in the Bill that will vastly restrict the number of examinations

There is documentary evidence of thousands of deaths in State-run or State-funded institutions. However, because the Bill does not allow for interventions based on unlawful or suspicious deaths, the majority of these crimes, of which we are all aware, may never be investigated. State and religious bodies are being protected by this contradiction while survivors and their relatives continue to live with uncertainty about the fate of their loved ones.

While I welcome the changes that remove the exclusion of the coroner in this process, we need a more proactive approach to include An Garda Síochána and coroners in examining known mass graves. The committee found that there was enough evidence from the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes to trigger coronial investigations into how individuals in institutions died. I have no sense that this is happening or that this Bill will encourage this action on the scale required to deal with the volume of sites around the country. I am deeply concerned this Bill will fail to provide justice for so many families.

The complex issue of contested intervention is highly sensitive. Survivors, relatives and the wider community will have mixed feelings about disturbing burial grounds or even inappropriate ones; the resting places of victims of Ireland's cruel institutional past. We have a responsibility to be respectful and precise in discussing this. At the committee, fears were being whipped up around forcible excavations of angel plots, which is untrue and unhelpful.

The specific mention of respecting relatives’ views is important. The mechanisms to achieve this will, however, need to be very finely tuned to engage affected people respectfully to balance and weigh up different perspectives and ensure justice for the deceased. It is a deeply complicated issue that was the subject of extensive discussion at committee and, to be fair, we passed on responsibility to the Minister. It is important to acknowledge that. It is morally dense and emotionally fraught but the Minister has responsibility in this area.

We have sites where some survivors and relatives want memorialisation rather than intervention. Simultaneously, other survivors want examination to know if their loved one is buried there and larger principles of transitional justice must be considered. There is no perfect outcome in these situations. Nonetheless, we need transparent and accessible mechanisms, which are as equitable as possible, to accommodate deeply held but potentially conflicting views.

The Bill needs a stronger articulation of the principles underlying this process. While the Bill recognises these decisions, there is no architecture for it to occur. How will these decisions be reached? Who will make them? What systems will be available to people? Whose voice counts? How will a relative be defined in this context? This is an incredibly important point and there are still too many uncertainties. The Bill needs to include these elements to avoid potential upset, conflict and even litigation.

Finally, I acknowledge the progress made in improving the Bill. There is clear evidence of the Minister listening to the submissions from different witnesses who shared their experiences with the committee. There is still more work to be done, however. This Bill currently has too many restrictions on survivors and relatives being able to seek interventions. It has ambiguous terms and ill-defined processes to engage with affected people and balance differences. It does not have a basis in transitional justice.

Mother and baby homes, industrial schools and other institutions are the most horrific parts of Ireland’s recent past. They mark some of the worst crimes committed by agents of the State and religious orders. The buried remains of victims are one of the most tangible and raw aspects of this history. Across the country, there is a dark geography of mass unmarked graves. It is essential to respond to that awful past. It is part of the process of acknowledging abuse and violations of girls, women, victims of rape, disabled people, people who were illegally adopted and so many more. There is a clear and crucial focus on Tuam. That cannot detract from the many other sites and survivors. Every one of them deserves justice and needs this Bill to guarantee that justice.

Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor

I thank the Minister. Before I continue, I acknowledge how engaged the Minister and his staff have been. He listened to families, survivors and the wider community and made changes in this legislation that were recommended to him.

We had a very lengthy process at committee but it was good that we did so. The Chairman, Deputy Funchion, and committee members from all parties worked extremely hard. We were honoured to listen to the stories we heard and we were all affected by them . There is no question about it. I know that when we left that particular committee, we went home and thought back on what happened, and it was very hard. It is important today that we have really listened to the voices of the survivors.

We have waited a long time for this legislation and now it is vital that we see it pass. Relatives are ageing. That is putting it bluntly, but they are. The babies in Tuam particularly have already been left too long. The site at Tuam is complicated; probably one of the most complicated in Europe. The Minister’s introduction into this Bill of intervention to be carried out by professionals, in line with international standards and best practice so as to maximise what is scientifically achievable with regard to the identification and return of remains, gives us the best chance of reunification.

We must see this Bill pass quickly and enacted so we can begin the process. We need this lawful basis for a forensic excavation, recovery and analysis of remains at the site of the former mother and baby institution in Tuam, undertaken to international standards. We will need this at other sites too and this Bill will allow that.

A number of changes have been made to the legislation since the general scheme was published to ensure it does not restrict any further investigations elsewhere. This is so important. I raised my concerns regarding the restrictions on the jurisdiction of the coroner in the general scheme. I am glad to have seen it removed entirely. That is important. The Bill will now require forensic excavation, recovery and analysis of remains to support, where possible, establishing circumstances and cause of death. This was a chief concern for many witnesses who appeared before committee.

This Bill will allow DNA-based identification to be undertaken to reunite families with the remains of their loved ones. While this is complicated, broadening the contributors who can actually come forward to grandparents and aunts is really welcome. A parent or a sibling can still request that only first-order relatives can be considered but the director can assess these requests now and make a decision so that the children have the best possible chance of having a dignified burial, service and resting place with the family that was denied to them when they died. That is so important.

We all know the excavation, recovery and identification process will be extremely complex because of the numbers, the ages of the children, the manner in which the remains lay and, of course, the passage of time. This legislation allows that to happen for those babies, however. I will support this wholeheartedly for the families, the communities who mourned them and this country to begin making amends.

Again, I am honoured to have been part of that committee. This has to happen really quickly. As I said, people are ageing and they need to know. It is important now that they know we have been listening to them. I thank the Minister. This has been very hard for all of us. We are moving to a good place where we can now give people the answers for which they have been looking.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

Unfortunately, we are once again in this Chamber dealing with a legacy of the State that has been far from what we would like it to have been. I will quote the Minister, who said, "What happened at Tuam is a stain on our national conscience." That is what happened at Tuam and in all the various mother and baby homes with the incarceration and treatment of women and children. At Bessborough, Sean Ross Abbey and in all the various institutions, the State failed to look after its citizens, from the youngest to the oldest.

We all welcome this legislation, which is not before its time. It must be accepted that a huge amount of due diligence has been done by the committee and Deputy Funchion. We need to make sure in the future that if any difficulties or anomalies arise, we get over them. It is vital that we would not in any way put through legislation that could impede. We want to exhume the remains of the children who were tragically lost in Tuam and elsewhere. That is necessary for them and for their families.

We have all met with people who have been directly impacted. There is a time constraint on us because many of these people are very old. We need not only to be seen to do justice; we have to offer them the justice that they have not received for a significant part of their lives.

I acknowledge the work that has been done by Catherine Corless and others in highlighting this issue. We might not be in the place that we are if it was not for their efforts. I welcome the interaction with the Minister, particularly in terms of the key recommendation not to remove the jurisdiction of the Coroners Act. All of these things are vital. There is still work to be done around the 20 m criteria. We need to ensure like that this does not become an obstacle. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will personally ensure that whatever piece of due diligence needs to be done is done. This will ensure that this legislation is fit for purpose and that we can have justice for those people who have been failed so badly by this State. I have no doubt that there will be full support across this House in doing this. Justice is better served late than never.

Deputy Bríd Smith

I was all ears in listening to the concerns that Deputy Cairns raised. They were very detailed. I look forward to the Minister’s response to them.

On their way in here, I am sure most Deputies will have noticed that, yet again, Sheila is outside the gates with her display on the mother and baby homes and the suffering that went on. In that, she mentions the 9,000 children who are alleged to have died across the 18 homes. Sean Ross Abbey is mentioned, as are Bessborough, Castlepollard, Dunboyne and more. This reminded me of what happened about year ago when I watched a very interesting documentary on Al Jazeera. It showed aerial archaeology of Castlepollard and, around it, what are suspected to be graves. Whatever comes out of all of this, as well as from the legislation and the complications around it, we cannot just stop at Tuam.

I want to begin by acknowledging that the Minister listened to the campaigners and the relatives in respect of the Tuam case. Catherine Corless has said that the Minister has taken on board issues that she and the campaigners had with the original draft of the Bill. I welcome that. I specifically refer to issues around the disapplication of the Coroners Act to those sites. To listen to and involve relatives in the process of the exhumation of remains and the identification of those remains has been hugely important.

I also want to quickly raise a couple of issues that were brought to my attention today from the Separation, Appropriation and Loss Initiative. They have concerns regarding the Bill. They say that the Minister has retained a highly controversial provision that empowers Ministers to unilaterally decide whether a site is to be exhumed and investigated or subject to a process of memorialisation. It also says the proposal regarding an advisory panel is unambitious and it severely limits the input and guidance for so many survivors and their representative groups. Notwithstanding these concerns, it is important to acknowledge that the Bill is much changed from the original version. Legislation that continues to ignore the wishes and views of those who were directly involved in this terrible travesty in our history cannot proceed. It is good that the Minister has listened to survivors and their campaigners on this. However, I hope this also shows that if there is a political will to respond to witnesses and to those who are affected, we can also bring it into other aspects of legislation around the mother and baby homes and their legacy. This is because we have acknowledged, in relation to this specific Bill, that there are serious questions on the wider issues connected with Tuam and other sites in the context of the loss of all these children, and their mothers and what happened to them.

The first issue I want to mention is the redress scheme and the attempt to place a time limit on it to those who can access it. There is an idea that those who spent less than six months in mother and baby homes should not be able to access the scheme. The Minister should listen to campaigners on this issue, as he has done in respect of the specifics of the Bill. It is certain that trauma and lifelong effects follow all of those who were in these homes for less than six months. That choice is an arbitrary and unscientific limit without any justification, either morally, ethically or legally.

The second issue is the predicted cost of the redress scheme. According to a report, a redress scheme covering all 58,000 survivors of mother and baby homes would cost €1.6 billion - civil servants are alleged to have warned the Government that this will be the case - and could derail attempts to support the survivors who are most in need. Let us be clear about this. I really want to emphasise what I am about to say. Many of the institutions and orders that operated these homes possess enormous assets and lands. Others have built medical and hospital facilities - empires, really - on the graves of those infants. Again, if we have the political will, we can and should seize the assets of those orders and whatever remains of the legal entities that they have evolved into. We cannot repeat the disaster of the Woods deal whereby a subservient State and political class allowed the church and its institutions to put a figure on what it agreed to donate to the redress scheme relating to the torture and abuse of children in this country over decades. Those in the church were allowed to manipulate and drag their heels for years. They are still allowed to do so.

I ask the Minister to show the political will to deal with the gaping wound that the commission's report has inflicted on the people who have been affected by this entire episode of our history. Let us be clear that the findings detailed in the commission report are not acceptable to many victims and survivors, full stop. This is not even to speak of a political level by Deputies and Senators, but of the people who are mostly affected. Several witnesses who testified to the commission found that excerpts from their evidence were taken out of the report. The report also contains inaccuracies, misrepresentations, etc. We all know how seriously damaging it was. We know that 9,000 children died in the homes that are under investigation. It is stated in the report that the commission found little evidence relating to issues such as forced adoptions, abuse and involuntary detention. Survivors have told us that the commission's findings flatly ignored and contradicted their personal testimonies. That cannot be allowed to stand. Moreover, it is not acceptable that a State-appointed commission should leave on the record the findings that institutions and religious orders were no more culpable for the torture and deaths in these homes than general society was. The attempt to lessen the responsibility of those directly responsible by referencing societal views is and remains the most egregious aspect of the report. We need to see a political will in this House to address and correct that. The attempt to absolve the sins of religious orders by blaming us all is further abuse of the victims. I will conclude by asking the Minister to show the same political will in addressing those issues as he has done in addressing the Tuam issue in the details of the Bill before us.

Deputy Patrick Costello

This is a very important Bill. I was about to say that this a painful part of our past but it is not. For many people, this is a painful part of their present. It is likely to be a painful part of their future too. I hope that this Bill can help to ease that pain. Perhaps it will not be a painful part of their future, because this Bill will enable us to get truth. From truth we can get justice. From justice we can hopefully bring some healing. Ultimately, it is essential that we do that in order to help heal the scars and the wounds that have been caused by the horrific actions and the horrible things that happened to mothers and their children in these homes.

I thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill. I will return to specific aspects of it. I thank also Deputy Funchion, as Chair of the committee, for leading our pre-legislative scrutiny. The Bill was one of the first big items of pre-legislative scrutiny we took on as a committee. We found a way to work together and I thank her for herding the cats on the committee and making it work. When we started the pre-legislative scrutiny, there was a sense that the Bill was simply about providing dignified burials, which had been denied, for the children who were lost and had been buried in sites such as that in Tuam. Survivors wanted and needed more, however, and they came before our committee and said that. We started looking for this in our pre-legislative scrutiny, as is detailed in the committee's report, and I am glad to say much of that has made it into the Bill. That has made the Bill stronger and it makes our hope for truth, justice and, ultimately, healing more likely to be achieved.

I note the involvement with the Minister of Dr. Niamh McCullagh. Dr. McCullagh possesses particular expertise. It is important that any exhumation be conducted in accordance with international best practice, that is, the high forensic standard that allows us to understand the truth of what happened, from which we can foster justice and healing. Including in the Bill assurances regarding international best practice and that high standard is very important. There was a promise from some in the Department that that would happen, so I am glad to see that standard has made it in because it needs to be provided for in the Bill to ensure it will happen. Equally, the post-recovery analysis and identification is very important in that quest for truth and justice. It will allow those who have lost relatives or family members or those who have questions about themselves, their past and their family to get answers. It is important that provision has been beefed up and improved and that it is included in the Bill in black and white. That is a very welcome addition.

I echo the words of other Deputies regarding the role of the coroner. It is important we keep that aspect of the Bill. I will save my remarks on the need to reform the office of the coroner for a more appropriate time, but keeping that jurisdiction in there and alive is an essential part of the apparatus of the State to lead, again, to truth, justice and healing. We talk often in the Chamber about matters such as truth, justice and healing. We talk about them in the context of Northern Ireland, the collusion reports and other issues relating to the Troubles, but they are very real in this context too. With the Bill, we have something that will facilitate that and enable us to take a site that has nothing but questions and, in a respectful manner and in accordance with international best practice, find out who is buried there and where their relatives are, and from that be able to piece together truth. From that truth, we will bring justice.

I am grateful the Bill will do that, and I thank the Minister for bringing forward this legislation to enable us to do it.

Deputy Patricia Ryan

I commend Galway woman Catherine Corless, whose tireless and painstaking work uncovered that 796 children had died in the Bon Secours mother and baby institution. I will not call it a home. She identified that there were death certificates but no burial records. The manner in which children's remains were discarded at this site was absolutely outrageous, and but for the work of Catherine Corless, we would probably not even know about it. She shone a light into the darkest part of our history and forced us to confront the legacy of 100 years of conservative Governments that abrogated their responsibility to the churches and left children at the mercy of people who did not have those children’s best interests at heart.

The Bill will provide a statutory basis and framework to allow for interventions at sites such as that in Tuam, where inappropriate burials took place. At long last, the children interred at the Tuam site and other sites can have a dignified and respectful burial. While the Government's efforts to finally address this issue are to be welcomed, they fall short in a number of areas. There are some concerns about the threshold that sites will have to meet in order to be thoroughly investigated. Further clarity is needed on the role and function of the agency and director, the new 20 m distance requirement and the definition of what constitutes a relative. The definition of eligible family members must include all family relatives. The role of the coroner is unclear and further distinctions are required between the roles of the coroner and the director. It is clear our current coronial laws are inadequate to deal with the scope and nature of burial sites at former mother and baby institutions.

The legislation, as drafted, may adequately address the specific circumstances of the Tuam site, but there are serious reservations as to whether it will sufficiently address those of other sites. These too deserve to be thoroughly investigated. I recently read Dr. Marie Cassidy's book, in which she writes about her work excavating mass graves in the former Yugoslavia. We may require international assistance given the possible scale of burials throughout the country.

Finally, on the issues of memorials and their funding, Kildare County Council unanimously passed a motion last year proposing to erect a memorial at St. Mary's cemetery, Athy, to remember all those who had died in the so-called county home. The Government should fund these memorials. The people of Kildare do not begrudge the money, but Kildare County Council is poorly funded and it is time to do the right thing.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

A fund is available for such projects and the Deputy is welcome to discuss it with me.

Deputy Patricia Ryan

I thank the Minister. I appreciate that.

Deputy Seán Canney

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation, approved recently by the Cabinet. It came about as a result of the discovery of the mass grave in my local town, Tuam, County Galway. Last weekend, I met some members of the Tuam Mother and Baby Home Alliance and I have taken on board their concerns relating to the legislation, which, they advised, demands amendments that will be submitted by them and others. Many experts have written about the recovery and the importance of exhumation to restore the identity, the physical location and the care that were denied to victims who were buried in unknown circumstances or in mass graves.

It is envisaged in the draft legislation that a director will be appointed as head of the office following enactment. It appears the director's role is intended to replace that previously suggested as that of the agency. Many human rights experts, including among the people I have spoken to, are adamant that the role of the coroner is central and that he or she must take primary responsibility for any site under investigation where human remains are located or where the cause of death, or the medical certification of death, is not clear. In the case of Tuam, as the Minister will be aware, the death records were not medically certified. Rather, the vast majority were signed by a domestic worker from the former institution. It is proposed the advisory board that will be set up will include one survivor of the institution and one family relative of a lost child. The Tuam Mother and Baby Home Alliance suggests that is too narrow to accommodate contributions from the groups of both relatives and survivors who are involved, and has argued the board should include at least three people from each category.

It is proposed that DNA samples from certain relatives will be safely stored for matching. It has been stressed on a number of occasions that primary relatives, particularly in the case of the Tuam site, are often elderly or in ill health. As a result, every effort should be made to obtain DNA in a timely fashion to allow for the best opportunities for matching when the infants' human remains have been recovered from the site. While the category of those eligible to participate as relatives has been extended beyond mother and father and sibling and half-sibling to include grandparent and grandchild, aunt and uncle and niece and nephew, the Tuam Mother and Baby Home Alliance has stressed the requirement to extend those categories to include cousins. We spoke about this yesterday but I reiterate it now. The reason for this demand relates to the fact the Tuam site operated between 1925 and 1961, and those searching for loved ones may include cousins of the deceased. Individuals who are first cousins have contacted me and, I understand, other members of the Oireachtas committee. The committee will hear representations when the Bill moves to Committee Stage.

Another concern expressed by the Tuam Mother and Baby Home Alliance relates to the extraordinary powers afforded to the Minister of the day to opt for memorialisation instead of site excavation and recovery of human remains. In recent times, and included in the bulletin received from the Minister this week, the focus leans further towards memorialisation, with funds available and accessible. It is premature for memorialisation at this stage, certainly in the context of Tuam and also the sites to which due consideration has not yet been afforded. Survivors living in my constituency and elsewhere and connected to the Tuam home have waited a considerable time for closure. Some have waited decades. We must ensure that the wishes of surviving relatives and our commitment to and respect for the relevant human rights treaties are afforded the highest priority.

This legislation is not a once-off. It will remain on the Statute Book and will facilitate the overseeing of excavation works, including those relating to exhumation, at other sites in the future. As a result, every effort should be made to get it right. I am sure the Minister will do that.

The effect of the excavation on residents living in proximity to the site and whose properties will be excavated needs to be part of the process from the start. Open engagement is important. A full-time, dedicated liaison person should be appointed to deal with residents' concerns. There are concerns that people's properties will be excavated. This would represent an enormous intrusion on their lives. I hope that those living there will be afforded the respect and dignity they deserve.

I appreciate the work the Minister has done on this matter and what he has undertaken to do to date. It is important to say that in order to ensure that his efforts are recognised. I commend the former Minister, Dr. Zappone, on her work in this regard as well.

Before I finish, I would like to also acknowledge Ms Catherine Corless's work in unearthing this terrible issue and bringing forward the research that has brought us to where we are right now. It is important that we acknowledge all of that.

I look forward to working with the Minister right throughout the process to secure the passage of this Bill in order to ensure that we get it right for everybody involved.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

I understand that what we are doing is a delicate and complex job. I commend the Minister on getting the Bill to the floor of the Dáil and seeking to progress it. Much work has been done in developing the legislation. Much discussion has gone into it as well. Nonetheless, as Opposition Deputies, it is our job to critique the Bill, identify failings in it and suggests improvements that might be made. There are some difficulties with the Bill as it stands.

In the region of 800 babies died in the home in Tuam. I can find burial records for only two of them - Vincent Hanon, who died aged one month in 1936, and Mary Margaret Jordan, who died at the age of one in 1932. Vincent and Mary Margaret were buried in the graveyard on Athenry Road in Tuam. Other than that, I can only presume that the remains of the other 800 babies are at the site in Tuam.

The Minister's press release on the topic from last week talks about the identification programme that has been expanded to include the participation of grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces. I understand that it is complex and confusing, but there is a difficulty with this in that the Minister may be out of touch with the situation as it stands. Does he really believe that babies who died in the mother and baby home between 1925 and 1961 will have grandparents who are still alive? The remains that will be exhumed will be those of babies and young children. The commission identified the presence of remains at the site and was clear that these are infant remains, yet the Minister has included in the Bill a reference to grandchildren. It is confusing. How would someone who died when he or she was a baby or a young child have grandchildren alive today? If these are grandchildren of the parents of those young children, they are uncles or aunts of those children or siblings. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain this.

The Minister does not seem to have identified the likelihood that there will be many unidentified babies' remains in the grave in Tuam. In my view, the proportion of the 800 babies' remains that may not be identified under the current scheme could be as high as half.

Any one of us in this Chamber could have had an aunt or uncle who died in a mother and baby home as a child and who we will never know existed. It is my understanding that the people of Tuam will not be able to come forward to provide DNA samples unless they know or suspect that they had relatives who died in the home. If that is the case, it will be impossible to identify the remains of every child at that site. What plans does the Minister have for the remains of the many children who may be unidentified? I would take the lead from survivors on this, but it may be appropriate for Galway County Council, which owned and controlled the mother and baby home, to provide respectful graves for these unidentified babies.

I am not sure whether the Minister comprehends fully the culture that surrounds this matter. There is certainly a culture of secrecy in relation to it-----

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

It’s all set out in the legislation.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

-----but there are many families who genuinely do not know if they are related to one of these babies. I have been talking to my Dáil assistant, Mr. Luke Silke, who has also been in contact with the Minister's office. Mr. Silke comes from Tuam, and he thinks we would have a much better chance of successfully identifying the babies' remains if the invitation to provide DNA samples was extended everyone in the area and not just to those who already know or suspect that they have relations there.

Outside of the 800 babies who died in the home, I have found burial records for 11 unidentified babies who died in Tuam between 1885 and 1939. I want to make sure that these babies are also mentioned here in this debate today. Seven of them died in the workhouse in Tuam, three of them were shockingly found discarded and one record refers to an "unknown infant who died in May 1936 and was found near the Tuam train station".

Before the mother and baby home opened in Tuam in 1925, for three years a mother and baby home operated in Glenamaddy. It was operated by the same organisation. Aontú has found records for more than 50 babies who died in that home between 1922 and 1925. The commission of investigation stated in its report that it regarded the Tuam and Glenamaddy institutions as one and the same. Therefore, we should be talking about 850 babies, not 800. Nobody seems to know where those 50-plus babies who died in Glenamaddy are buried. This is something the Government must also look into. I want to mention Kate Lynskey and Christopher King in particular who died 100 years ago this month in the Glenamaddy mother and baby home. Kate was ten months old and died of pneumonia on 12 March 1922. Christopher was a year old when he died from congestion of the lungs on 29 March 1922.

After the exhumation has taken place in Tuam, we need a memorial garden. We need a place where all names of these babies are gathered together to ensure that none of them will be forgotten.

Aontú is calling for the expansion of participation - to allow anyone in Tuam who wants to find out if he or she is related to anyone at the site to come forward and provide DNA. I agree with the provisions for mothers to object to more distant relatives receiving information. That is a good provision. Notwithstanding this, we need to allow an open invitation to everyone to come forward. Otherwise, we will run into serious difficulty and see a situation where maybe up to half of those babies remains will simply not be identified by this scheme.

I also want to pay tribute to Sheila. I am sure many people will know Sheila. She is outside the Dáil again today. She cycled through the rain to get here. Sheila will never give up in her campaign for justice and I hope that the other Deputies will engage with her as they pass through the gates of Leinster House at Kildare Street.

Is ábhar uafásach deacair é seo agus ábhar truamhéalach gan dabht. Tá cúpla fadhb fós leis an mBille seo. Ba cheart go mbeadh sé leathnaithe amach go dtí go mbeidh gach duine atá ina gcónaí i dTuaim ag an mbomaite seo in ann a ainm a chur isteach le haghaidh teastais DNA a fháil.

Tá contúirt ollmhór ann mura ndéanfadh an Rialtas é seo mar nach mbeimid in ann aitheantas a chur ar gach uile pháiste reilig atá ansin anois. B’fhéidir go mbeidh suas go dtí leath an 800 páiste gan aitheantas a bheith acu nuair a bheidh an jab seo déanta. Bheadh sé sin uafásach má tharlaíonn sé sin. Ní fheicim go bhfuil plean ag an Rialtas déileáil leis na páistí sin, páistí gan aitheantas. Caithfimid éisteacht leis na survivors atá tar éis teacht amach agus a scéalta a insint dúinne ach ba chóir go mbeadh ról ag Comhairle Chontae na Gaillimhe, an t-údarás a bhí i mbun an bhaile sin fadó, agus go mbeadh an chomhairle sásta reilig le meas a chur ar fáil do na páistí nach bhfuil aitheantas acu.

Tá an Bille seo casta. Cuireann sé mearbhall ar dhaoine mar gheall ar mhamó agus daideo agus mar gheall ar pháistí grandchildren, agus araile, agus ba cheart go mbeimid in ann é seo a phlé níos mó. B’fhéidir go bhfuilim mícheart mar gheall ar an aitheantas agus ar an tuiscint atá agamsa ar an mBille agus ba mhaith liom éisteacht leis an Aire le go mbeidh sé in ann níos mó eolais a thabhairt dúinne faoi sin.

Deputy Emer Higgins

I thank the Minister and his Department for all their work on this legislation. I pay tribute to all of those who may be watching proceedings today, who have fought so hard to shine a light on Ireland's deeply dark past. I have no doubt these proceedings are difficult for many to watch and listen to for a range of reasons and I respect them for their continued courage. Tribute must also be deservedly paid to Catherine Corless, without whom it is likely we would not even be discussing this legislation today. In a recent interview Ms Corless said her work would not be finished until all the babies wrongfully buried in Tuam had been exhumed. She said: "There are babies and young children down in the chambers of a sewage facility, they were discarded, frowned on, treated like dirt, there's no getting away from that and the only way to rectify the past is to give them a bit of dignity and exhume them." I hope this Bill will bring that closure not just to Ms Corless but to the many families affected. What this Bill seeks to accomplish is unprecedented: a reflection of Ireland's uniquely shameful history and repugnant attitudes towards unwed mothers and their children.

I have said on many occasions in this House that I do not believe there are enough actions this Government could ever take to right the wrongs of the past, such was the nature of the crimes committed against these mothers and their babies. At long last, the children interred at Tuam will be afforded the opportunity of a dignified and respectful burial, which is the very least that they deserve. The process to date had been very frustrating for families, a fact which the Minister himself has acknowledged. I ask that we proceed swiftly in establishing the agency to oversee the process and that we begin working to retrieve DNA on site as soon as is practicable. I welcome that this legislation will give the newly established agency the power it needs to access the highest technical services possible, and to have the necessary resources to identify the remains of these babies.

The legislation has been broadened to include a wider circle of relatives than anticipated, including grandparents, aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces who may provide DNA to compare with remains. This will provide a greater chance of identification and the dignity of reuniting these families, that were often torn apart, to grieve for lives shown so little dignity in their short time on Earth.

I ask that the Minister makes the process of application and identification as straightforward and compassionate as it can possibly be. We cannot right the wrongs of the past. It is an unimaginable shame that these women and their children were born in a time so much less tolerant and more blatantly evil than the Ireland in which we live today. We can honour the babies of Tuam by continuing to fight to make our society a more tolerant one where those in power stand up for and protect the vulnerable and the innocent so that we never return to those very dark days. We cannot right those wrongs, but we should not stop until each of the babies so wrongfully interred in Tuam is afforded the dignity and respect of the final resting place that they so deserve. I welcome the work on this Bill because I know it undertakes to achieve that. I thank the Minister for his compassion and dedication to this extremely important piece of legislation.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Cathal Crowe)

The next speaker is Deputy Martin Browne. In case anyone is waiting to come in afterwards, I ask Members to be aware that we are adjourning the debate at 5.10 p.m. and moving on to the next business.

Deputy Martin Browne

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach Gníomhach as an seans labhairt ar an mBille seo. Attempts to deal with the legacy of the mother and baby homes that were allowed to operate here have been fraught with attempts to go over the heads of those who should have been consulted properly, and with actions that denied the memories of those who, sadly, are no longer with us. I hope that is changing. The work of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Children, Disability, Equality, Integration and Youth, chaired by Sinn Féin's Deputy Funchion, and the recommendations it published have made a big difference. I acknowledge that the Minister listened to those views.

Shortly, I will talk about Sean Ross Abbey, which is in Roscrea, in my constituency of Tipperary, but first I ask the Minister to provide clarity on Part 2 of the Bill that concerns the director giving the go-ahead for excavation works. It states that the Government may refuse to make an order where other substantive reasons exist which cause it to form the view that memorialisation of the burials on the land, without further intervention, is more appropriate. There is a level of vagueness to this that does not set me at ease. I ask the Minister to outline what precisely the director will take into account, and whether there will be a level of discourse between the director and those seeking intervention. Pursuing a programme of restorative justice cannot leave any room for vagueness. I ask this because it is connected with the points I want to make to the Minister on Sean Ross Abbey.

First, I acknowledge and thank the Minister for the engagements that he has had with those associated with Sean Ross Abbey and Tipperary County Council for working steadily with them. As the Minister knows, much work is going on in preparations to determine the location and condition of unmarked burials at the site. I would appreciate if the Minister could tell me if he is in a position to issue a set of guidelines and resources for those who are at the stage of preparing to scan an area for this purpose. People with a close association with Sean Ross or any other institution are naturally unfamiliar with a project of this nature. It is also new territory for Tipperary County Council. It would be useful to provide a roadmap featuring the requirements that would be made of those seeking scans and the provisions that would be made available to assist them. I am not talking purely financial assistance here; I am also talking about directing those concerned towards the contractors they may need. If the Department is willing to provide any resources, I ask whether they would be made available directly or through the local authority. What I am suggesting to the Minister here is that there should be a duty of care to assist in the preparations needed to determine the extent of the need or otherwise of excavations on a particular site.

I also ask the Minister to expand on the extent to which work at other sites can take place at the same time as Tuam, or if he intends the process at Tuam to inform works at other sites. I would appreciate if he could provide interested parties with updates in relation to his engagements with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage on the issue of memorialisation.

I would like the Minister to provide some more detail on intervention at other sites. The 20 m rule is a particular issue here, as are concerns that it could become overly-restrictive, particularly for sites where more information needs to be gathered.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 2 Mar 2022

Institutional Burials Bill 2022: Second Stage

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 2 Mar 2022