I move amendment No. 28:
In page 15, line 17, to delete “as soon as practicable” and substitute “within 28 days”.
Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Bill 2022: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage
Debate resumed on amendment No. 27:
In page 15, line 17, to delete “as soon as practicable” and substitute “within a timeframe of no longer than three months”.
-(Deputy Peadar Tóibín)
Amendment put and declared lost.
Does anyone wish to address this cluster of amendments? Does the Minister wish to do so?
I have already addressed this group of amendments.
I will speak to it then.
All right.
Perhaps the Minister could explain why he is not accepting the amendment. It has been a week or two since the last time we debated this legislation, so perhaps the Minister might explain his reasoning. It is seeking to speed up decisions of the deciding officer to prioritise older applicants and to set out how the deciding officer should do this. Will the Minister explain why he is opposing this amendment, because it is a reasonable?
Would any other Deputy like to contribute? No. I call the Minister.
I thank the Deputy. I reassure Deputies by reiterating it is the full intention that applications to this payment scheme will be addressed as quickly as possible. While I understand that concern was expressed regarding the absence of specified timelines in the legislation and that this could be interpreted as opening the door to long delays in processing applications, this is absolutely not our intention. We expect that the vast majority of applications will be readily verifiable through the official records and will be processed quickly to payment offers.
In a scheme of this scale, however, we must also be cognisant that a limited number of applications will not be as easily verifiable, owing, perhaps, to inadequate official records. To place specific timelines in legislation requires certainty that they are achievable in all circumstances and the particular timelines being proposed to be put in here are simply not achievable. I think it would be wrong for us to put into legislation something we will simply not be in a position to deliver. We will, though, have targets and timelines built-in around the guidelines surrounding the scheme. These will be contained in ministerial guidelines and they will be supplemented on an administrative basis.
I call Deputy Funchion.
I apologise, but can I confirm we are on amendment No. 28?
Yes, we are.
I thank Deputy Sherlock for moving this amendment. It is concerned with the timeframe in the context of this scheme, which we have been discussing and which we discussed the last day as well. I refer to the age cohort involved. As I said previously, it is difficult to talk about the subject sometimes when we have such difficulties with the legislation.
One thing we definitely do not want is delays. The phrase "as soon as practicable" is just too vague. We are already seeing huge issues and delays in the processing of birth information and people looking for their records. We need to be strict and have a tight timeframe, particularly for anyone who is elderly.
These amendments are about ensuring applications are processed in a timely manner. The current wording states that a deciding officer will assess an application "as soon as practicable". That is completely unacceptable. The amendment in my name and that of other Deputies insists that this be replaced with "within 28 days". These amendments are necessary because survivors and campaigners do not trust the process the Minister is proposing. Why should they? Why for one second should they trust anything that comes from this Government and this State? Their lives have been shaped by the abuse, human rights violations and suffering they endured in these institutions. A State-funded, church-run system denied them some of the most basic dignities, both in the homes and then for the rest of their lives.
For decades, church and State have conspired to oppress survivors, deny their rights and make them fight tooth and nail for any progress. We are talking about some of the worst crimes imaginable. I feel like I have said these words so many times in this Chamber: forced family separation, incarceration, illegal adoptions, forced labour, illegal medical trials, denial of dignity and physical, emotional and sexual abuse, which were all systematically targeted at the most vulnerable in society. When the State and church could not deny their stories anymore, they moved to denying justice, then to hollow apologies and, finally, in the last act, dividing survivors and giving the bare minimum to some. I say "the last act" because that is what this is. Time has already run out for so many survivors and others are too exhausted for another fight.
There are thousands of survivors watching this right now and seeing another Government ignore them, belittle their suffering and try to brush over injustices. I know they are watching because they told me so. They are tuning in because they know this is the last chance for any changes to this legislation. All they can do now is watch and see how we are representing their stories and their calls for basic recognition. Can the Minister truthfully say he is doing all he can? Can he really say he has listened to survivors? His redress scheme says in black and white that he has not. He is ignoring the very consultation he commissioned. Survivors and their allies gave their time and energy to make suggestions on an inclusive and meaningful scheme and he disregarded most of them. This is why they do not trust him now.
In the OAK report the survivors made very clear recommendations which the Minister ignored, as will each Deputy who votes for this deeply insulting and harmful scheme. Survivors asked for a universal and inclusive scheme where all mothers and babies would be eligible for redress regardless of the duration or year of their stay. The Minister has ignored this and excluded those who spent less than six months in homes as children. The report calls for survivors who were subjected to coercive family separation outside institutions or who were illegally adopted, fostered or boarded out to be eligible. These malpractices are rightly among the list of abuses and human rights violations that must be recognised by this scheme. The Government ignored this and is excluding those who were illegally adopted or boarded out.
The report clearly states that those who were subjects of vaccine trials and milk formula trials should receive reparation. The Government ignored this and excluded this as a category for redress. Moreover, it is doing nothing to pursue the pharmaceutical companies that perpetuated these crimes. The OAK report states, "The most commonly held view in relation to financial recognition was that an immediate interim ex-gratia, common experience payment, should be paid as urgently as possible." The Government ignored this and is making survivors wait for its scheme and making them go through a bureaucratic process with no guarantee of a timely result. This is not my opinion; this is fact. Survivors know what they said. The report is publicly available. The glaring gaps between a meaningful and inclusive scheme and the Government's divisive and insulting proposal are clear for all to see. Not only is this what survivors want, the UN rights committee and special rapporteurs have called for the inclusion of all survivors, the removal of the legal waiver and redress for victims of racial discrimination. Again, the Minister has ignored these calls.
The Minister has also ignored the Irish people. He has disregarded the thousands of emails received from his constituents and mine. This scheme is being carried out in the name of the Irish people and they know it is wholly inadequate. They have repeatedly asked for a more inclusive and comprehensive scheme. The other call from ordinary people is to hold the perpetrators to account. Religious orders and pharmaceutical companies financially benefited from these horrific illegal acts. Assets should be seized as part of criminal investigations. Instead, the Government is in negotiations with these bodies, kindly requesting a contribution. This is not some charitable donation; this is justice.
There is no valid reason not to recognise all survivors. People who spent any time in a mother and baby home deserve reparation. I know that. The Minister knows that. We all know that. Despite the Minister's callous and completely inaccurate description of the first months of life, they matter. They are incredibly significant. Survivors have suffered long trauma because of forced family separation and the breaking of that bond between parent and child. Today, this Minister, this Government and every single Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Green Party backbencher, as well as a few Independent Deputies who quietly support them, will vote to exclude 40% of survivors. They will put on the record of Dáil Éireann that the survivors of illegal adoption, forced labour, illegal medical trials, forced family separation and sexual and emotional abuse deserve nothing. That will be their legacy when the history books of mother and baby homes are updated to cover this shameful scheme and those who support it.
I support this amendment. To draw a comparison with the Department of Social Protection, if you were designing a scheme to which people would make an application and which was subject to a decision by a chief deciding officer, the timelines built into that for a decision would be definitive. What the amendment seeks to do, quite rightly, is take out certain words. We are getting into the weeds of the legislation here. We want to ensure the scheme, whatever way it is designed, is fit for purpose. I will quote the legislation for the benefit of those watching:
The Chief Deciding Officer—
(a) shall, subject to paragraph (b), complete his or her examination of an application and make his or her determination, as soon as practicable, and
(b) may accord priority to the examination of an application where he or she considers that it is in the interest of fairness and efficiency to do so, having regard in particular to the personal circumstances, including the age and state of health, of the applicant.
The words we are seeking to delete are "as soon as practicable". What the amendment seeks to do, quite rightly, is put a timeframe on that for a decision. That is not an unreasonable request. That would tally with the design of most schemes, in my humble experience, across other Departments that citizens apply for. That is all that is being sought here. I ask that the Minister reconsider that.
I also want to revisit the point that has been made umpteen times at this stage. We want to speak for the 40% of survivors who will not be eligible for any scheme by dint of the fact that they did not meet the six-month requirement. On the basis of fairness and equity, the six-month requirement is arbitrary and permits no consideration of the context of a person's life.
I have no doubt in my mind that this will have to be revisited again at some future date and that this is an issue which will come before the courts as sure as night follows day.
At this eleventh hour, I ask the Minister to please have regard for those babies, those persons, those human beings, who were resident for that period of time, from birth until six months, to be included in the scheme on the basis of fairness, justice and equity so that the scheme can encompass more people who we all feel on the Opposition benches have the right to be included.
I will conclude by reiterating my point about the design of the scheme and the role of the chief deciding officer in support, again, for the amendment. The making of the determination, in other words, the making of the decision about the case, “as soon as practicable”, is too open-ended given the age cohort we could be dealing with here.
As has been said by Deputy Cairns, where people are getting older, they are at a certain stage in their lives and they have a right, we feel, to have a decision made in respect of their application in a finite and within a definitive period of time.
We will now have Deputies Pringle, Healy Rae, and Deputy Joan Collins. I may have erred in procedure insofar as I was not chairing the proceedings on the last occasion, but I believe that when amendment No. 27 was moved, a number of contributions were made. Members are limited to two contributions so if a Member has made two contributions already, the House cannot hear the Deputy again. I call Deputy Pringle now to speak.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle and, for clarity, I did not make a contribution on the earlier occasion. Does that mean I get two contributions on this occasion? My apologies, as I am being a bit flippant here on such a serious piece of legislation, when it is probably not the best time to be doing that.
I put on record my support for these amendments because they are only trying to extend the timeline and limit on the making of decisions which the chief deciding officer will make. The Minister will probably say the intention is to make these decisions quickly and that there is no need for these amendments but, as has been said by the previous speaker, whenever the words “as soon as practicable” is used in legislation, it sends a chill down my spine because I know that “as soon as practicable” for people in the real world and “as soon as practicable” for people in the legislative world and in the world of Government in dealing with this are two very different things, and completely different aspects, sometimes, of how things progress. There is no reason these processes should not progress rapidly so the timelines should not cause a problem for the State in actually dealing with these cases. God knows, all of these people are known and should be known to the State, so there should not be much deciding to be done in respect of what is needed. It is vitally important that the time limits be there because any delay or slowness which is built into this legislation will, unfortunately, be used. That is the way these things happen. For that reason, I support all of these amendments because they make that difference and make it actually feel the State is responding rapidly to the people who need a response.
For the record, Deputy Connolly could not be here this evening because she is not feeling well. She should be back again very shortly. I thank the Ceann Comhairle.
I wish her well and call Deputy Danny Healy-Rae now, please.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle and I am glad to get the opportunity to talk about this Bill tonight.
The most joyous occasion in the world has to be when a little baby is born to a mother, whether it is a boy or a girl. It is very sad to think this is what we are doing to those people who suffered in a darker time when people had different and wrong ideas. A child born to a girl or a woman in any circumstances has to be right. It is natural. Those girls and women were denied fair play, were sent to homes, were not let keep their children and were denied the mother and child bond which always happens when they are left together. No love that I know is greater than the love a mother has for her child. What happened to these girls in the past is very sad.
What the Government is trying to do with this Bill is mean. It denied many of the survivors the right to be heard by this commission, and to comment on the commission’s draft findings. The Government is now suggesting these survivors be limited to six months. I know someone who rang me today.
I believe they are ringing again.
They rang Tusla in the past number of days and gave the timeline of having been born and the timeline of when they were adopted out. We do not know what kind of an adoption that was because in many of these instances we know the foster parents or whoever they were-----
My apologies, but there is a phone ringing somewhere. It is very distracting and I cannot hear Deputy Healy-Rae properly.
I did not interrupt Deputy Sherlock.
There is a phone ringing somewhere and I cannot hear the Deputy properly.
I did not interrupt the Deputy when he was talking.
I am trying to listen to the Deputy.
Deputies, please, whoever has the phone ringing-----
Those are the antics of the Deputy to interrupt me and those have been his antics. I never denied the Deputy the right to talk about the people of north Cork and if I am talking about the people of Kerry here, I tell the Deputy not to interrupt me at this stage.
No, no, Deputies, I ask that whoever’s phone is ringing to deal with it, please.
I am not answerable to Deputy Sherlock inside this Chamber at any time. I was elected by the people of Kerry and it is them and them alone I will answer to and not to the Deputy. I am telling him not to be interrupting me.
Can we keep the phones turned off, please?
I want the House to hear of this person I represent, or who is one of the people I represent in this redress scheme proposed by the Government. I tried to contact the agency involved and I gave the timeline of when he was born and of when he was fostered out. He could clearly prove that it was at nine months. He was told, I believe by Tusla who represented the State, that perhaps it was only two months. I can see what the Government is at. It is trying to deny people redress. The Government, and there is nothing wrong about it, is looking after people from every other part of the world. I do not mind it doing that but please look after our own people.
These people were badly looked after many years ago, and some were buried in slurry tanks around Galway. They were not looked after properly and that is where they were finished up. These were wonderful babies with all of their lives ahead of them. The Government is now trying to curtail them from getting redress as they enter old age. God damn it man, is the Government so mean in its heart? After suffering that kind of starvation, will the Government not now look after these people? What is wrong with it? The Government is denying these survivors the right to get proper redress and to be included in this Bill. What is the difference between seven months and four months in a mother and baby home ? Who decided that? What nitwit decided that was going to be a proper law? That will be contested in the courts and the Government will not have a leg to stand on.
We are costing more money here arguing about this. I have been in the House at different times about this, as far back as 2016. Some of these people are in the Gallery today. They are still hurting and will always be hurting about what happened to them. There are more of them throughout the country. Some of them are on their last legs. What is wrong with the Government that it is denying our own people a redress scheme? Why is the Government trying to exclude them? I appeal to the Minister, at this late stage, to cop on, because what the Government is trying to do to these lovely people is not fair.
I think of children being born into love and care and, at that time, it was frowned upon if a girl became pregnant outside of marriage. There was nothing wrong with it then and there is nothing wrong with it today. We are striving to ensure as many little babies are born as possible, that we see after them in hospitals or wherever they are to be seen after and ensure they get the medical care they need. These little misfortunates did not. Some of them survived and these survivors are around. We will exclude 40% of the survivors from the scheme and deny healthcare to two thirds of them who are still alive. Does the Minister honestly think that is fair or right?
I have never been as upset about anything as this because it is totally ridiculous. The Government is absolutely mean-hearted. There is misery in its heart when I see it trying to bring forward the Bill in this form. I am asking the Government to change its mind. I am not blaming the Minister on his own, because there is a Government behind him. There are about 34 or 36 people in the Government. The Taoiseach called out the names of all the Ministers and there are that many of them involved that he gave nearly half an hour to naming them. I am appealing to them to cop on and ensure these survivors are properly looked after and that all of them qualify for the redress scheme.
I understand your emotion but, please, do not give yourself high blood pressure.
I am all right. I will be fine.
I support the amendments Deputy Boyd Barrett tabled. In any scheme we are doing, it is important that decisions are made by the chief deciding officer. The Bill says it will be done as quickly as possible, but we have all seen in the past where that gets diluted because, as quickly as possible, it is left open ended. It is important we put a timeframe on that. It would be reasonable to do so, especially in view of the fact that what we are trying to do here is to give redress to people who are at an age where they have been fighting for years. It is important we bring closure to what they are doing.
I will address the big issue in this redress scheme. That 40% of the survivors are excluded from the redress has caught the Government in a wrong movement. This week, the Minister rightly announced supports of up to €1.2 billion, on top of supports of €2 billion or €3 billion that were brought in for the energy and cost-of-living crisis. I know extending this scheme to all of the survivors will cost more money, but it is not a cost we can walk away from. The people who are here in the Gallery and the people who could not make it here tonight and are watching on their televisions deserve to be treated equally. That is the essence of my concern.
I agree with Deputy Healy-Rae that it is emotional. It is emotional for the people who are affected by all of this. It is probably emotional for the Minister to deal with this and try to battle and balance things up, but there is no real reason or logic to excluding 40% of the people from the redress scheme. The only logic is the cost, which has been estimated at something like €300 million. In the overall context of all the good things we are doing in this country and the supports we are giving to very many people, the time is here for us to step up to the mark for the people who were let down by the State - shame on all of us that they were - and say we will do this. There is still time to do so. I plead with the Minister to go back to the Government and the Ministers of Finance and Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, Deputies McGrath and Donohoe, to try to get this money in place.
The redress scheme was not set up based on costs. It was set up for the particular reason that the Government has apologised, on behalf of the nation, to the survivors and their families. We have done all of that. The principle of the redress scheme is recognition. I cannot figure out where the six-month threshold comes in. Is it medical or scientific or is it just a cut-off point? I cannot figure out how it was arrived at. How would a survivor who spent six months and one day there qualify and somebody who spent two days less - five months and then some - not qualify? Why do we divide the survivors? Why do we do all of that? That is the question that is coming back at me from anybody I have spoken to. I cannot explain it. I would love to hear an explanation, but I doubt if there is one other than a money cost. That is where the crux of all of this is.
I plead with the Minister to accept the amendment from Deputy Boyd Barrett and put a timeframe on the chief deciding officer's decision-making process in order that we have a fixed time. I ask him to consider the 40% of survivors we are walking away from.
I support amendments Nos. 27 to 30, inclusive. They are very practical amendments to the Bill. The Minister should take them on board. However, I will take the opportunity tonight, because it is probably the last time I will get the opportunity to speak on this, to read two or three accounts from people who sent emails. We have been bombarded with emails in the past couple of weeks. I welcome that. We have received 1,336 emails. Mr. John Campbell, Deputy Pringle's parliamentary assistant, checked it up to midday yesterday. It is a brilliant response from people and supporters who have been subjected to the mother and baby institutions. I will not call them homes. I have cleared this with the people who sent them in.
The first email is from Noelle Brown, who is a survivor of Bessborough mother and baby home and an adoption rights activist. She is asking us to please listen and act with respect towards survivors and oppose this Bill. Noelle goes on to say survivors have had to witness the Government rushing through a discriminatory information and tracing Bill "despite huge opposition from survivors". According to Noelle, the Government has rushed through the burials Bill, ignoring most sites, including Bessborough, where she was born and where she was subject to vaccine trials. Noelle calls herself "lucky to make it out alive", when hundreds did not and their bodies are scattered across the ground of Bessborough. She says she has met the mothers of those children still looking for them "50 years later" and points out that Bessborough is only "one home in a long list of mass graves" throughout Ireland, many of them unacknowledged by the Bill.
Noelle writes that the twin tenets of this Bill, according to the Government, are acts of kindness and do not harm. According to Noelle, it does "neither of these" but only serves to magnify the level of disrespect, abuse and retraumatising survivors have been subjected to, every time they are asked to be listened to. She says survivors are "continually infantilised" and told they are central to every Bill being enacted, but they are not. Noelle goes on to say that since the publication of the "appalling" commission of investigation report into mother and baby homes, things have got so much worse for survivors. Noelle tells us we have a chance to oppose this Bill and "do right" by generations of Irish citizens who are still shamed and denied their human rights for the simple fact of being born outside of marriage or having given birth outside of marriage decades ago.
She finishes by asking us to listen and to help to finally create a chance for truth, justice and reconciliation. As I said, that email was from Ms Noelle Brown.
I also received an email from Mr. Joe McManus, who the Minister probably knows. He writes that one of the most disappointing aspects of following the various Dáil proceedings with regards to mother and baby institutions is the continuous erosion of trust. He points out that for many burdened with State and Church forced separation, trusting people is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do and that this is a medically proven by-product of the neurological damage caused by early separation. He refers to the Minister saying that for his part, he is committed to ensuring this Government's response will mark a profound transformation not only in the State's engagement with survivors but also in its support for them. The email points out that the Minister said that the relationship of trust between the State and former residents of these institutions has been broken and that the Government must begin the process of rebuilding that relationship. That was on 19 January, 2021.
Encouraged by the Taoiseach's 2021 apology and the Minister's public commitment, Mr. McManus points out that many survivors pushed down vulnerabilities and let themselves trust the State which had wronged them so egregiously in the past. However, what followed was the publication of a report derided by most, a report shown to be factually incorrect in the State's highest court. This was soon followed by the OAK report, commissioned by the Minister, whose recommendations were subsequently ignored, argues Mr. McManus. Committee groups were convened by the Minister, who then dismissed their recommendations. There were debates on Bills "that disallowed vast swathes of amendments" and those that were allowed were shot down. The very process of some of these debates was "mired in cute hoorism"; carefully timed just before the Dáil recess, allowing little or no debate - a point raised by both the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and the European Commission. The same carefully timed tactic was previously deployed by the Minister when debates were held on the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Amendment Bill. Even the State's own special rapporteur on child protection reported on the inadequacy of the State's response on the subject. In reply to mounting criticism, the Minister promised to complete a legal review of the mother and baby home report, a promise he reneged on months later. Yet, despite all of this, Mr. McManus writes "TDs and Ministers still want us to trust them" but such trust that is not only not earned, but has been proven completely unworthy with the exclusion of over 40% from redress. He asks that the Government makes good on its apologies, rebuilds trust and excludes no one from the redress scheme.
These are the voices of people who have gone through the system, a rotten and cruel system. I want to put on the record again the points that have been made by the 34 clinicians on the question of whether research in the area of early childhood trauma was referred to by the officials who were drafting the redress scheme. The Minister knows the points they made. They said that it does matter if a child is separated from his or her mother in the early stages of life, especially in the first couple of months. Again, I am pleading with the Minister on their behalf to review the situation. There is still time.
On the issue of the six-month limit, if it is not about money then what is it about? Why are they excluded? It cannot be on the basis of the Birth Information and Tracing Act because that is their entitlement. They are entitled to access their birth certificates so it cannot be in compensation for that. I ask the Minister to stand up and say what the six month limit is about, not after this Bill has been passed but now so that people know what the issue is there.
I also have another email that I would like to read into the Dáil record from Ms Breeda Murphy from the Tuam Mother and Baby Home Alliance. I may get the opportunity to do so later. I want to speak on behalf of those with lived experience of mother and baby homes.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I note that Deputy Tóibín is not here to move his amendment.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 15, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“(c) shall, when applicant has reached the age of 75 years or older, prioritise applicant and process within 15 days.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 16, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
“(c) specify the length of time said information will be stored, confirmation if at the end of this period said information will be destroyed and by what means,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Again, Deputy Tóibín is not here to move his amendment.
Amendment No. 32 not moved.
Amendment No. 33 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 34 to 38, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 22, line 36, to delete “section 13,” and substitute “section 18, and”.
Amendments Nos. 34 to 38, inclusive, relate to the effect of an appeal lodged by the chief deciding officer in the High Court to section 24 of the Bill which relates to appeals. Amendment No. 34 also deals with a cross-referencing amendment arising from the changes to section numbers as a consequence of the insertion of new sections. I flagged on Committee Stage that I might bring a technical amendment to the Bill in this regard.
The Bill provides that applicants have recourse to an independent appeals process by virtue of sections 23 and 24. Additionally, section 25 sets out that a further appeal on a point of law can also be made to the High Court. This option is also available to the chief deciding officer as it relates to the determination of an appeals officer. In the published version of the Bill, section 24(8) must, where applicable, include an offer, even if the chief deciding officer lodges a High Court appeal following the determination of an appeals officer. However, in such a case, an applicant could not accept this offer. Therefore, this amendment seeks to clarify that in the circumstances where the chief deciding officer lodges a High Court appeal, the determination under section 24 and any offer under section 24(8) shall cease to have effect pending the outcome of the decision of the High Court on those proceedings. This is necessary in order to ensure clarity for all concerned, particularly the applicant.
Section 18 provides that "The Chief Deciding Officer may, for the purposes of his or her examination of an application, request the applicant concerned to provide, within such reasonable period as the Chief Deciding Officer may specify, information by affidavit where the Chief Deciding Officer is of the opinion that ..." and it goes on to list the various subsections and paragraphs. What is the justification for seeking an affidavit in the first instance? That is my first question. I am thinking of the person who has to go to a solicitor to make an affidavit. He or she will possibly have to relive past experiences in making that affidavit so there is a potential trauma there. Then there is also the cost to the person of having to make the affidavit in the first instance because he or she will have to pay a solicitor. Is there any thinking on the Minister's part in relation to making that a more seamless process? Has the Minister given any thought, where an applicant is successful after the fact, to enabling him or her to recoup, under the ambit of the scheme, the cost of the affidavit? I would like to get a sense from the Minister as to why the use of an affidavit was deemed necessary in the first instance. I am worried about that provision.
Some of these amendments are technical in nature. Some of them deal with the right of people to appeal. As others have already done and given that I was not sure I would have a chance to speak, I will take this opportunity to make some points in what is really a last-minute appeal to the Minister. I will connect what I have to say to the amendments before us. I find it quite extraordinary that we have a whole series of forensic, technical amendments and that the Government can go to such trouble and effort to make the Bill technically operable. A lot of energy and time has been spent on making the Bill technically operable when it is morally obnoxious.
That has been made absolutely clear to the Minister by the people who are supposed to be at the centre of this Bill, namely, the survivors. At this point, I find it quite extraordinary that the central issue has been raised again and again throughout the passage of this Bill - on Second Stage and Committee Stage - and in thousands of emails from the survivors, and we still have not got a reasonable, if any, justification from the Government as to why it has decided on the arbitrary exclusion period of six months.
The Deputy is talking about these points being technical. On Report Stage, it is the technical details of the amendments that we are supposed to address. We have had the Second Stage debate. All of these relevant points have been made.
The Ceann Comhairle allowed them to be made in respect of the last grouping, so I think I deserve my opportunity.
In fairness, this is our last chance to make any sort of appeal.
Go on.
I find it absolutely extraordinary that the Minister has managed to stay pretty stony-faced in all of this - I am sure he is aware of the strength of feeling that has been expressed by people - and has refused to give the answer or to explain the exclusion, despite the last-minute and desperate appeals that have been made in this House and, more importantly, from thousands of survivors as to how the Government can possibly justify the six-month exclusion or the refusal to fully acknowledge those boarded out and those who suffered discrimination on the grounds of race. The Minister has not given an explanation. It defies belief that that is the case. I suppose the only reason it can be is because there is no possible justification. There is no moral, rational or reasonable justification for the exclusion. I offer the Minister a final opportunity to explain to the people who are watching, and to explain to the people in the Gallery, how he came to this conclusion and why he is sticking to it in light of all of the points that have been put to him by those who are survivors.
As the Minister knows, I was adopted and I was in a mother and baby home - probably two - I do not know for how long. That is genuine. I do not actually know for how long I was in a mother and baby home. It is irrelevant. It is irrelevant how long people were in because the primal wound is the separation of mother and child. That is it. The impact of that on the child and on the mother is from the moment that happens, and that happens very early on - long before six months - and has lasting impacts. Those impacts are different for everybody. For some, they are relatively liveable with - let us put it that way. For others, whether it was one week, six weeks or six months, the pain and trauma lasts forever. For everybody, the impact lasts forever. A fundamental thing has happened out of your control, a decision made by the authorities, church and State to alter your life in the most fundamental way against your will. Six months just does not come into it. I appeal to the Minister, most importantly, to just pull back, as we appealed to him the last time round, and change this in order nobody will be excluded. Even the most elementary understanding of human child psychological development understands that the formative moments of a child's development are those early hours, days and weeks. This makes no sense at any level.
I take this opportunity to set out points that were made to me by a number of survivors in recent days. The Minister has put much store on the idea that people have had access to their information. As others have said, they have their right to do so. However, it is also starting to come to light now that people are not actually getting the information they thought they were going to get, and that there is no consistency in how that information is being dished out. In some cases, certain things are being redacted with black marker and in other cases they are being redacted by being whitened out. In some cases, for example, people are getting information about their feeding schedule and medical records when they were in mother baby homes, and in other cases they are not getting those things. People are beginning to wonder what is going on. Again, this would matter somewhat less if there was not an attempt to exclude people. There is a lack of consistency, excluding some, giving information to some and not giving information to others. That is compounding the wrong that has been done to children, mothers and those who went through the mother and baby institutions. I ask the Minister to respond at least and to give people an explanation, even though I do not think there is one, or to pull back at this last moment and listen to the people who matter in this debate.
I appreciate the Ceann Comhairle's indulgence. It is probably one of the last occasions on which we are going to have the opportunity to discuss this in the Chamber. For those of us that have been dealing with it for the last number of years, , just even in this context, it is important for us to make the final points. First, I will speak to the technical aspects of the amendments. We do not support amendments Nos. 34 to 38, inclusive, on the basis that they refer to the dissolution of the agency and handing the powers over to the Minister at that time. As I said previously, we do not support the dissolution of the agency. There was also talk of five years, which we do not agree with. I think that is far too short. For that reason, we do not support these amendments.
I know other Deputies have done it but I think we cannot say it enough. Any time we have a conversation, whether it is in this Chamber or a discussion in the media in relation to this topic, I never fail to be surprised when another person contacts me, who I have known in some way, shape or form in my life, and I did not know anything about their connection with a mother and baby institution. I think that shows how many people, families and generations are affected. Honestly, it never fails to happen that as soon as we discuss this issue, somebody else gets in touch to tell their story. I want to acknowledge all of those people. I acknowledge, in particular, those who were boarded out, who were literally treated as slaves in many situations, and were treated horrifically. I acknowledge all of those people who spent even a minute in a mother and baby institution, but in particular, because they are being excluded, those who spent less than six months there. As one man said to me earlier - again, somebody I knew but that I did not know had any connection to the mother and baby institutions - a lot of people really were not interested in the money. That was not the motivation for them in any way, shape or form. As we have often said, how do you even put a price on this or how do you start to put a price on it? It is the fact that because the six month threshold was applied, it is kind of like saying to all those who were in mother and baby institutions for six months or less that they do not count. The man told me that the apology that was issued in January 2021 rings hollow for him and so many others.
I want to mention the delays experienced by people accessing their records, because that has come up. As Deputy Boyd Barrett has said, there is a total mismatch. Some people are having great success and others are not getting any information. Some are getting medical information and others are being told they cannot get that or that they have no connection to a person who is deceased. I want to briefly tell a story about a person who was adopted from a mother and baby institution, had a sibling adopted and the sibling tragically passed away in an accident when they were in their 20s. This person's adopted parents have now passed away. This person is now trying to contact the mother of the sibling, in case the mother is trying to track this person down, to let them know a little bit about their life and give them some pictures. They have been told, in the most recent round of birth information and tracing, that they have no connection and cannot get involved in that process.
There is a major error if that is the case. I wanted to bring that to the attention of the Minister. We had serious issues with the Birth Information and Tracing Act and voted against it. I do not think the situation I outlined should be the case for people who grew up together and who are siblings. They are being told they cannot be involved in the process because there is no blood connection between them. That is wrong. I wanted to have the opportunity to tell that story.
There are many different aspects to these issues and, unfortunately, for people who have survived the institutions, it has been one failure after another. An apology has been offered, but in word only. The most fundamental thing we teach our children about apologies is that it is important not only to say the words but also to change one's actions. I tell my sons if they are consistently doing the same thing that they have to change their actions. One cannot just keep saying, "Sorry". An apology rings hollow unless actions meet it. It is not good enough to say to people that we are sorry and then tell 24,000 of them that they do not count, along with all of the boarded-out who do not count.
I warmly welcome everybody in the Gallery this evening. I extend the same warm welcome to anybody who is watching at home. If I were watching on and not a Member of this House, I would find what is happening confusing. I just want to explain to people the reason we are talking about very technical amendments at this stage of the progress of the Bill. Perhaps those watching did not hear the previous debates. It is important to explain that we are permitted to make only minor changes to the legislation at this late stage. For anyone watching, that is because of the rules of the Dáil. Only the Government can make decisions that result in the additional spending of public money. If we had submitted amendments to include, for example, people who spent fewer than six months in an institution, those amendments would have been ruled out of order before we got to this late stage in the debate. It might seem a bit confusing to anyone watching on and who may be asking why we are not talking about those important issues. We would love to be talking about those issues and have done so previously but in this moment, it is not possible. Standing Orders are failing people in that sense. The Government obviously has the power to change those things and it is not yet too late. This is its last chance.
I fully support what has been said in respect of the amendments. I will ask for the indulgence of the House for a couple of minutes. I wish to put a couple of matters on the record in connection with the Bill. There are a number of quotes I would like to read. I will not name the people whose words I am sharing but they need to have their stories told. It is important. I beg the House's indulgence to do that.
The first states:
I would love to give my story to the dail as this really upsets me how things have turned out.
I thank you for your help but as a child who was in st patricks and been in different childrens homes, I will still live with unanswered questions to do with my life.
Things, such as photos of me been a baby might not be much to some people but it's my life no one else's.
I would like to know how would they feal not ever having someone that they called mam or dad or how would they feel if they had no records of when u were a baby. I need to end this nightmare that's been with me for years I've had a childhood full of sexual and physical abuse. I cry myself to sleep most nights wondering why me why did I not have a life were there wasn't sexual and physical abuse about I was only a child I was suppose to be in a safe place I have feelings and I don't ever think my heart will be mended. There's a lot more that I could say but I hope I get the message through thank you again.
Another states:
I for one do not want their insulting pittance, I want justice for being coerced in to giving my son up for adoption, an illegal adoption as I was underage to begin with for consent of any sort, I was 14 when I pregnant and just turned 15 when I had my son. So i am in process of taking an individual case. I think that many more will do the same if the government continue with this ridiculous redress bill!
That correspondent continued:
I am really upset and angry. I was denied the opportunity of rearing my son, was expected to carry on as if nothing had happened and to add insult to injury was put into An Ghrinan reformatory school. Shamed and silenced for years. The life long trauma and loss and seperation. Honestly Leo varadkar really added insult to injury today when he spoke about this being ‘history’ and that they need money for todays issues..How dare he minimise us survivors...who suffer everyday with that loss and pain...that never goes away...it eats away at you like a cancer until the day we die! And offer what he thinks is a generous package to some...what will be his bill and that of the cabinets St. Patricks day holidays across the world...a hell of a lot more than he is offering survivors for a life time of trauma!
Another states:
Whilst I'm disappointed with the near certain outcome, contributions along with other opposition TD's has been most welcomed. It goes a long way to speaking the truth of what went on.
My mother never had a chance to speak out and died in an institution. The least I can do is send a few emails.
That is just a sample of the emails I have received to my office. It is difficult for the people who have lived through this to have to watch these proceedings. I send my thoughts out to them. I hope that at some stage in the future, something proper can be done to address these issues because there is no doubt that we will have to come back to them.
In answer to the question Deputy Sherlock asked about the amendments, access to the institutional payments scheme is based on evidence of a person's residence in one of the named institutions. That is primarily proved by the database that was created by the commission of investigation. This House voted to keep that database in 2020, to maintain it and to transfer it to Tusla. The database will be accessible by the independent office set up to oversee the payment scheme. That will be the primary way in which residence within an institution can be proved.
In response to some of the points that were made earlier, we know that every institution either did not maintain full records or, more importantly, and particularly in the cases of some of the older institutions, those records do not exist anymore. The majority of records were obtained by the commission of investigation and form part of its archive, which was transferred into my Department following the dissolution of the committee. The archive does not contain records from every institution. In a situation where an applicant wishes to access the scheme and we are not able to prove residence through the use of the database, an affidavit will be applied. The scheme is designed to avoid affidavits, where possible, by simply allowing an official to look at the records and see if the relevant individual was in an institution and the length of time for which he or she was there. However, it recognises the reality that those records are not in existence in every case and offers an applicant another method by which to access the scheme.
The Deputy is right that there is a cost there. It is important to note that section 37 of the legislation records that legal costs for applicants will be covered within the scheme. We will not be leaving applicants out of pocket for their applications under the scheme.
Points have been also made about the Birth Information and Tracing Act, and the wider legislation. It is important to say that both the other two major pieces of legislation we have brought through - the Birth Information and Tracing Act and the Institutional Burials Act - underwent extensive discussion in this House and the Seanad. Both were the subject of many amendments during that process. The Birth Information and Tracing Act guarantees for the first time the legal right of access to a range of information, including birth certificates, birth information, health information and early life information. Some 6,900 people have now applied for their information since the scheme opened in October and 2,000 of those applications have been already answered.
I said throughout the passage of this legislation that every piece of information that is within the records and that is covered by the Birth Information and Tracing Act will be provided to people. I also said that not all the information is there. I was upfront about that point throughout the process. Institutions may have feeding schedules or important pieces of information. If the information is in an archive held by my Department, Tusla or the Adoption Authority of Ireland, it will be provided to applicants. However, there will be situations where that information does not exist.
I will come in again briefly, if I may, on the issue of the affidavits.
The Minister refers specifically to section 37 which states that, "The Scheme may, in accordance with regulations under section 38, provide financial support". The word "may" is very subjective. My fear relates to people who are not on the database who wish to make an application and have to procure an affidavit. I am seeking greater certainty for such applicants and to prevent a situation where it becomes de rigueur or a de facto requirement for people to make an affidavit. When you enter that realm, you enter the realm of costs. If the wording of the legislation is not secure enough with regard to covering costs, people may be discouraged from making affidavits. What I am seeking is, quite simply, greater certainty for applicants who are not on the database and who require an affidavit and for the wording of the legislation to be such that there can be no ambiguity that, in dealing with the organisation the Minister is to set up within his Department - I do not mean to sound facetious about that - no one will come a cropper when seeking to make an affidavit in as seamless a way as possible and without being left out of pocket. The making of an affidavit is a complex process, as anyone who has ever made an affidavit in civic life will know. There is more involved than just spending an hour with a solicitor. There can be hours and days of work involved in making an affidavit. Where are the costs involved to fall? I just want more certainty on that point.
I have also made the point that people who access the redress scheme and receive a payment are disbarred from initiating litigation or waive their right to do so. I do not know if it is a precedent but the symphysiotomy payment scheme did not require or compel any woman to forgo her right to initiate legal proceedings after the fact. There is an issue with regard to the legal element of this legislation that we need to have greater certainty on. The wording needs to be more watertight.
It is in no way proposed that the making of an affidavit will become the general approach. The legislation has been designed in such a way as to minimise the need for survivors or applicants to have to relive the trauma, to the extent that is possible, and the approach that has been adopted has been to provide for an application to be made, following which the officials will look through the database to establish the records. However, we had to provide an alternative route for cases where that information is not found. The affidavit is that alternative route. Under section 37, the costs of making such an affidavit will be met. The legislation provides for costs to be covered and the cost of legal fees is built into the overall costings for the scheme because we recognise that support will be needed. Applicants under the scheme are entitled to independent legal advice before making a final determination as to whether to accept an offer and the cost of this advice is also covered by the scheme.
An bhfuil aon Teachta eile ag iarraidh teacht isteach? All sásta.
Bhuel, níl mé sásta.
That is a different question.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 22, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
“(ii) subject to section 30—
(I) an offer to the applicant of a payment to him or her of the amount concerned, and
(II) a statement of the effect of sections 31, 32 and 33,”.
May I come in on that? This is the first time we are speaking on these amendments.
The amendment has been discussed. It was grouped with amendment No. 34. The Deputy may have two minutes.
I just want to come in on amendments Nos. 34 to 38, inclusive. Amendment No. 56 is in this grouping. Is that not correct?
No, that is the next grouping.
I am sorry, amendment No. 56 is the one I want to come in on. I thought that amendment No. 34 was grouped with amendment No. 56.
It is the next one.
The grouping list reads:
34 to 38, inclusive; and
39, 43, 44, 48, 49 and 56.
Amendment No. 56 is in the next grouping. Deputy Cairns may make a brief contribution on amendment No. 35 if she wishes.
It is amendment No. 56 the Deputy wishes to address. It is in the next grouping.
That is fine.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 22, to delete lines 37 to 39.
Is this amendment No. 56? I am sorry; I cannot hear the Chair.
For clarity, the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach is moving through each of the amendments Nos. 34 to 38.
Yes, as they are grouped. Each amendment has to be put sequentially.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 23, line 1, to delete “where” and substitute “subject to section 30, where”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 23, line 6, to delete “where” and substitute “subject to section 30, where”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 39, 43, 44, 48, 49 and 56 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 23, line 38, to delete “section 34” and substitute “section 40(1)”.
I will speak to the group. The notion of deemed withdrawal of an application, review or appeal is proposed for inclusion to provide clarity around what should happen where an applicant ceases to engage on an application for a sustained period of time. This is important for the purpose of the efficient administration of the scheme, clarity for all concerned and accuracy in reporting. The act of withdrawal of an application is already provided for in the Bill. Amendment No. 56 provides for circumstances in which applicants will be deemed to have withdrawn an application, request for review or repeal where they fail to comply with a formal request of the chief deciding officer within 60 days. Amendments Nos. 39, 43, 44 and 48 are technical amendments arising as a consequence of amendment No. 56.
It is important to note that administratively it is intended to make a number of attempts and give a good deal of time to applicants in these circumstances before their application or request for review or appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn. I just want to set out the approach that will be taken. It is intended that the ministerial guidelines will provide that when an applicant is first requested to make additional information available to the chief deciding officer in order to allow him or her to make a determination on their application, they will be provided with 60 days to respond to this request. An example of such a request could be a sworn affidavit where the institutional records are insufficient. If following this 60-day period, an applicant has not responded to the chief deciding officer, a reminder will be issued and the applicant will be afforded a further 60 days to respond.
The final notification which is provided for in the Bill will issue following this second 60-day period. Again, an applicant will have 60 days to respond to this final notification. This means an applicant will not be deemed to have withdrawn their application or request for review or appeal until 180 days has elapsed and the chief deciding officer has had no contact from the applicant despite these repeated requests for engagement.
Furthermore, the amendment of section 34 also seeks to include a provision allowing for an application or request for review or appeal to have been closed on foot of a deemed withdrawal to be resumed for consideration. Where an applicant makes a request to this effect and the chief deciding officer is satisfied that the applicant had good reason for his or her previous failure to comply with the chief deciding officer's request, again, in administrative terms it is the intention that the chief deciding officer will consider such requests for a resumption in a lenient fashion.
Many survivors who engaged with the consultation process said that they did not anticipate the impact this would have on them. For this reason, we wish to ensure that the process under the scheme is mindful that some applicants may need to avail of this additional safety net whereby their application may be resumed. The intention is to strike a reasonable and proportionate balance between the need for a fair approach and also for legal clarity with a mechanism that allows the administrator to close applications after a period of time where it is clear that the applicant does not wish to engage with the scheme further.
Amendment No. 49 provides clarity as to the effect of active or deemed withdrawal of an application on the Statute of Limitations. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel advised it was necessary to set out clearly that where an applicant withdraws from the process, is deemed to have withdrawn or rejects a payment, the limitation period starts running again.
I find the Minister's amendment No. 56 particularly rich. I think it is distasteful and representative of this entire situation. It can be directly contrasted to amendments by me and others which sought to ensure that applications are processed in a timely manner. The Minister has insisted the deciding officer and staff administering the scheme are permitted to be given an open-ended timeframe to process applications. However, survivors making applications are requested to provide clarifications or evidence and they are limited to 60 days. To recap, the officials are permitted to non-defined, as-soon-practicable timeframes, whereas the applicants are given time limits after which if for whatever reason they cannot reach, their application will be deemed to be withdrawn. This disparity reveals the entire mindset of the Government and the Department, a mindset that survivors are aware of anyway, but it really paints it in black and white for everybody to see.
Fundamental and acute power asymmetry with a cruel State has defined survivors' lives. Young women were incarcerated for being pregnant. That is the only reason they were stigmatised and locked away. Babies were taken away from their mothers. Children were in essence sold or subjected to illegal medical experimentation. At the root of that was a twisted partnership between the church and State that sought to control, and abuse women and children. The very least that this scheme should do for those the Minister deems worthy of redress is to allow them the dignity of applying in their own time and if they need to take a bit longer he should accommodate that.
The scheme should be about including everybody, about helping people apply, about going at the pace of the people who have endured horrific abuse and lifelong stigma. Unfortunately, it is the exact opposite. The Minister spoke briefly about how 2,000 people have received their information under the birth information tracing legislation. Given that 6,000 people have applied, it leaves 4,000 who have applied and not received information, not to mention all the people it might not have reached and who might not be aware of it.
As this is one of the last groupings of amendments that we can speak to, I want to say this. This scheme is blatantly arbitrary and the Minister will know that an arbitrary scheme is an unconstitutional one. He cannot just randomly exclude people who spent less than six months in an institution. He cannot ignore racial abuse in institutions. He cannot ignore many things. Many people, including UN human rights experts and survivors have told him about that. This entire story has been one of underestimation. In the first instance, it is safe to say that the Minister underestimated the suffering people have experienced. I do not believe he knew the extent of it.
I think he underestimated the strength of feeling among the general public on this. Most importantly I think he underestimated the strength of survivors. In the last three years since taking office, I have had the privilege of meeting many people who went through these horrible institutions. I have rarely been so motivated or inspired by the strength of individuals and groups. It is quite incredible. The Minister underestimates them at his peril because when he produces a blatantly arbitrary piece of legislation like this, he will regret it as cases will be taken against it. At this late stage, and at this final hour, I think all we can say is change it now or he will see why he should have.
I also want to speak to amendment No. 56 which I am totally opposed to. It refers to somebody being required to submit additional information and yet the Minister just said that in many cases the records are not available. If we know the records are not available, what additional information can people possibly submit? Tonight and during countless debates we have asked why people who were born in the institutions and spent less than six months there have been excluded. One of the answers we get back is that the Minister wanted a non-adversarial approach. However, does the Minister actually think that people who have nothing to do with a mother and baby institution will try to apply for this? That is how it appears.
Again, it goes back to the lack of trust and the underlying patriarchal mindset that "we know best". That was the mindset that women, who were forced into these institutions in the first place, were faced with. They were told, "We know best and this is what we need to do for you and your well-being." It is total and utter nonsense. It has caused devastation to the women and to the children born to them who are now adults. In some cases that generational trauma still exists in all aspects of people's lives.
As I said in my last contribution, there is an apology but it really does not mean very much and we are still doing the same thing. There are major issues with the birth information tracing legislation. People are having serious issues when trying to access their records. Now we are saying that the clock is ticking and if they do not comply with the timeframe, the time is up. The scheme is wrong to begin with in the sense that it is not fair or equitable. If someone is entitled to it, how can missing the 180-day deadline mean they are not entitled to it? We should not be putting that in there. I do not think there are any technicalities or reasons where if somebody is entitled to it they should be signed off at some point because they did not comply and did not come back.
It should be open to them to come back in the future. Sometimes when the debate is split over two days it gets disjointed. I now feel I know why the five-year rule is being put in place because if they miss that, then sorry, that ship has sailed for them. Irrespective of how anybody tries to dress up this, it is a cost-saving measure.
We cannot look at trauma and human rights abuses through the lens of cost savings. They must be seen for the human rights abuses on the part of the State and the religious institutions that they were. The pharmaceutical companies also played a role through the illegal vaccine trials. We should be going after the churches and pharmaceutical companies. They have acknowledged and apologised for their role. That means nothing, given that they do not want to pay towards the redress scheme, but it gives the State the opportunity to consider pursuing them through the courts if needed.
I do not support amendment No. 56. It is not right to ask for additional information when we know the information is limited. The State cannot tell someone looking for his or her records that it has limited information only to then tell that person he or she needs to give it additional information in order to apply for the scheme. That is hypocrisy.
I rise to oppose amendment No. 56. We are supposed to be legislating in a generous spirit, but the language of the Minister's amendment No. 56 is rules based. It requires the person applying, "within 60 days of the date on which the notice is sent to him or her, to comply with the request". I understand that if you are designing a legislative scheme, there is a lexicon around it. In this instance, however, the scheme's provisions have to be more open ended. My reasoning for this is that the persons applying to the scheme have gone through such trauma in their lives that there needs to be a kinder and gentler approach, not an arbitrary one that puts deadlines on the applicants. I fear that this will get wound up into a technocratic and bureaucratic scheme that will leave people further traumatised by dint of their experience in applying for the scheme in the first instance.
At this, the eleventh hour, the Minister needs to examine how the scheme is devised. It puts too many obstacles in the way of the applicant. I appreciate that, when devising a scheme, there needs to be a rules-based approach, but we must also be sympathetic to the people who are making the applications on the basis that we believe the veracity of the information they are providing, given that they are, for the most part, already part of a database or on record as having been residents in an institution and so on. It is on this basis that we are opposing the amendment. It is too arbitrary.
I believe strongly that our generation of politicians – I include the Minister in my generation – had a wonderful opportunity to deal with this legislation in a comprehensive way that would not have excluded people. For the life of me, I still cannot understand why up to 40% of survivors – "survivors" has become the de facto word – including children who spent less than six months in an institution and those who were boarded out, are excluded from it. One can only conclude that this is about money and resources. A decision was taken somewhere on the Minister's side of the House between officials and between Ministers that we had to resource cap the scheme because they were only thinking about its financial cost. There is a generation of people who could avail of this scheme and who we believe have a right to do so but who will now be excluded by dint of the fact that they do not meet the six-month requirement. That is too arbitrary and permits no consideration of the context of a person's life. That is fundamentally sad - it is the saddest thing. Our generation of politicians had an opportunity to be more inclusive of people in designing this scheme. It would not have been perfect, but it would have included more people who, as of right, should have been included. Even if the Minister had to revert to the House at this eleventh hour with a revised scheme that was more inclusive, he would be pushing on an open door with us. As the legislation is constituted at present, though, we in the Labour Party cannot support it.
I suspect that almost none of this adversarial approach - the Minister says he is trying to avoid it, but this amounts to an adversarial approach of putting pressure on the applicants to meet particular timeframes for further information - would be necessary if he did not have the arbitrary six-month exclusion. Why send someone back for more information? Why refuse his or her application? It would be because the deciding officer felt that the applicant had not reached the threshold of six months or needed to do something to prove he or she had. The fact that, from the start, the Government has been trying to exclude people for reasons the Minister still has not explained despite repeated requests means that we will end up in an adversarial approach where we require the survivors to get information and then deem their applications to be withdrawn if they do not revert within certain timeframes as against an open-ended period for the State to process and make decisions on applications.
This redress scheme and legislation were supposed to be about the survivors and redress and an acknowledgement of those who had suffered. Instead, those who went through the mother and baby homes, those who suffered forced separations and those who were done a great wrong by the church and State will be put under pressure to either provide information or to have their applications deemed withdrawn. Is that not perverse? Is that not completely upside down and the wrong way around? The State can take as long as it likes, but the applicant – the survivor – may be required to prove himself or herself according to these arbitrary, unjust, inhumane, insulting and exclusionary criteria that the Government has devised.
The Government cannot even show enough respect for those sitting in the Gallery, those who are watching and have written to every Deputy and presumably every Government Minister asking why. Every single time, certainly in the debates I have participated in, the Minister has been asked and he will respond to technical questions around specific amendments but he will not answer that question and the Taoiseach would not answer it today either. I believe at this last minute the Minister should do the right thing and accept that if all of the survivors are saying it is wrong, unjust, cruel and insulting, he should just put up his hands and say "we got it wrong". It is not too late. This legislation can be adjourned. It was adjourned from two weeks ago and it can be adjourned again. The Government can come back with amended legislation that removes these arbitrary, unjust, cruel, inhumane and insulting exclusions. I appeal to the Minister to do that. If he is not going to, for God's sake he should at least give somebody an explanation as to how he possibly came to this perverse decision. There is no other way to describe it. He might at least give us the respect of providing the rationale that informed this decision, or perhaps he cannot because there is none.
I mentioned earlier in the House that Deputy Connolly was not well this evening so she could not make the debate. She asked me to read this out on her behalf. This Bill is divisive and discriminatory. It is excluding completely any child who spent less than six months in a mother and baby home. No reason is given except a bland claim they would not have known what was happening. This is despite a letter signed by over 30 therapists setting out that the first six-month period is one of the most sensitive and important in a child's life. Also, those boarded out are completely excluded, along with no recognition for the extra suffering of children of mixed race. It is ignoring so many submissions and the cross-party recommendations, for example, to include all children, in the submission from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, the survivors and particularly the consultation carried out by OAK Consulting on behalf of the Department. More than 550 survivors engaged with this process and the vast majority agreed that a universal redress scheme was the only fair and just way to proceed. The Minister should withdraw the Bill and work with the Opposition. The precedent is there from the recent patient safety Bill.
Regarding what this section seeks to achieve and responding to the questions raised by Deputy Funchion and Deputy Boyd Barrett about why you would send back for more information, this section would primarily apply in a situation where an applicant has made an application, the deciding officer has said their name is not in the database at the moment and asks them to provide information about them being in a particular institution. At that point, as already discussed, an affidavit is the approach that will ground that. What this says is, when the chief deciding officer communicates with the applicant, they are told they have 60 days within which to provide that affidavit. If the applicant does not respond within that 60-day period, a second communication is sent with a second encouragement to provide the relevant information. If that is not responded to, a third communication is sent, after which one more 60-day period exists. There is a 180-day period within which the applicant can respond to the request for information. It is also important to say that, even if that 180-day period lapses and the applicant has not come back, the applicant still has a right subsequently to come back and seek to have the application resumed. There is both a time period of 180 days, the basis of six months, and then a secondary element where people can come back even if they fell outside that time period to provide the relevant information and seek to have the application resumed.
I know that the placing of time limits like this, which the Opposition spoke about, in a scheme of this scale and importance can seem bureaucratic. Dealing with a scheme where we expect about 34,000 applicants and a significant number of initial applications within the system without any kind of conclusion about whether they come to inclusion puts a further burden on a scheme at a time when the priority should be answering the applications and providing the payments and medical cards to those applying under the scheme. It is important to restate that someone can still come back and reactivate their application even if they do not communicate back within the six-month period.
I am sure I am not the only person feeling the absence of Deputy Connolly tonight. I am glad Deputy Pringle read something out on her behalf. I wish to acknowledge the amazing work she has done on this. The people watching at home will be wondering where she is this evening, but as Deputy Pringle said, she could not be here because she is unwell. I pay tribute to all of her work.
If it is the case that someone misses the 180 days and they can come back, why is the 180-day period there in the first place? Why can it not be a rolling process? Why is there any timeframe? I guarantee they will not be able to come back. It will be a whole new application again. Even the most basic application forms for a medical card or even sometimes the community welfare forms are so daunting for people.
They are sometimes 30 pages.
It is off-putting. We all come across people who do not apply or appeal because the forms are like an essay. If it is a case that you can come back after the 180-day period, I do not see the need for the 180 days. I have a feeling it is not as straightforward as that and it would be like a new application and starting from scratch. That is going to put people off. I think there is a phrase about not being able to sign away your rights. If somebody is deemed eligible for this scheme, then they are eligible. It should not matter whether they apply now, in a year, six months, two years or whenever. That brings me back to the five years, which I was suspicious of. I think that is why that was put in place.
I share a similar view to Deputy Funchion about the application process. I do not know if the Minister has ever spent time with a constituent filling out a medical card, invalidity pension, disability allowance, pension, community welfare allowance, supplementary welfare allowance or any other such application form, but it is quite an onerous task. I still do not understand why he is putting a sunset on the application process. I am interested in what the Minister said about the potential, if I understood him correctly, for 34,000 applications, or that the Department is asking for provision for 34,000 applications approximately. I worry less about the people in this jurisdiction than about the people outside of it who may reside in the United Kingdom, for example. I worry that they may get locked out of the system and it will become far more onerous for them to make an application if they are one step removed from the State. They will not necessarily have access to the information or perhaps to a deciding officer in the same way as someone who resides in the State may have. On the subject of the potential for 34,000 applications, the question also arises as to whether the scheme will be adequately and comprehensively advertised to people who are not resident in this State.
It is a fair assumption to make that many people who would be eligible for the scheme are resident in the United Kingdom, the United States of America or elsewhere. They may not even be aware this legislation is before us as we speak. The Minister may argue we are being quite pedantic about it but I believe what we want is a scheme that is generous in its constitution and how it is made up. It needs to be as seamless as possible. It needs to cause no trauma or put in place any impediment to people who are applying.
It is important in a situation where someone initially makes an application and decides not to take it any further that there is a process for them to inform the chief deciding officer that they are not taking it any further. It is necessary in a scheme of this scale that the chief deciding officer is able to make a determination after a period of time that the application is no longer live. This is what is provided for in this section. It provides a six-month period within which this can be decided. It recognises there may be very good and genuine reasons that more than six months have elapsed and the applicant has not communicated. It recognises the stress or trauma that proceeding with one of these applications may generate for somebody. We have built into it an ability for someone who has fallen outside the six-month period to come back and provide a reason to the chief deciding officer. As will be built into the guidelines, this will be designed in such a way as to be supportive and allow such applications to be recommenced.
Deputy Sherlock is absolutely right. We believe a significant number of applicants under the scheme are residing outside of the jurisdiction. As we know, many former residents and survivors left the country following their time in mother and baby or county home institutions. In the context of the Birth Information and Tracing Act we engage significantly with the Irish embassies abroad and in particular with representative groups for the Irish diaspora in the United States, the UK, Canada and Australia. We will mobilise the same routes in terms of providing information about this scheme. We will also provide an extensive advertising campaign in Ireland and in appropriate locations. I do not have the figures but I suggest that a significant number of the 7,000 applications for the birth information and tracing legislation are from outside the State. This shows we can have a reach. We very much recognise that a reach is needed in this area and that many of the applicants will be from outside the State.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 24, to delete line 20 and substitute the following:
"(a) subject to paragraph (b) and (c), the applicant,
(b) where section 36 applies to the application, the person who made the application on behalf of the applicant, or".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 24, to delete lines 28 to 33 and substitute the following:
"(3) A person who receives a payment under paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1), or the personal representative of a person in respect of whom a payment is made under paragraph (c) of that subsection, shall not institute civil proceedings, and shall discontinue any other proceedings instituted, by or on behalf of the applicant against a public body, that arise out of the same, or substantially the same, circumstances as the circumstances to which the application concerned related.".
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 24, lines 35 and 36, to delete all words from and including "an applicant, having made an application under section 14—" in line 35 down to and including line 36 and substitute ", an application having been made under section 19, the applicant—".
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 24, line 37, to delete "section 34" and substitute "section 40(1)"
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 24, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
"(b) is deemed, under section 40(5), to have withdrawn his or her application,"
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 25, line 6, to delete "by" and substitute "by or on behalf of".
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 25, line 8, to delete "his or her application under section 14" and substitute "the application concerned".
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 25, line 11, to delete "the relevant person’s application under section 14" and substitute "the application concerned"
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 25, line 14, after "application," to insert "is deemed under section 40(5) to have withdrawn his or her application".
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 25, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
"(3) Where consideration under this Act of an application, review or appeal is resumed pursuant to a direction under section 40(7), this section shall apply in respect of the period following such resumption, subject to the following modifications and any other necessary modifications:
(a) the reference in subsection (1) to an application having been made under section 19 shall be construed as a reference to the consideration of the application, review or appeal having been so resumed, and
(b) the reference in subsection (2)(a) to the date on which the relevant person’s application under section 19 is received by the Chief Deciding Officer shall be construed as a reference to the date on which consideration of the application, review or appeal is, pursuant to the direction, resumed.".
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 25, line 23, to delete "as soon as is practicable" and substitute "within 28 days".
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 73; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Andrews, Chris.
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Barry, Mick.
- Berry, Cathal.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Brady, John.
- Browne, Martin.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Cairns, Holly.
- Canney, Seán.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Michael.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Pa.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Funchion, Kathleen.
- Gannon, Gary.
- Gould, Thomas.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kelly, Alan.
- Kenny, Gino.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McDonald, Mary Lou.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Smith, Duncan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Ward, Mark.
- Whitmore, Jennifer.
Níl
- Brophy, Colm.
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carey, Joe.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Foley, Norma.
- Harris, Simon.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Hourigan, Neasa.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lahart, John.
- Lawless, James.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
- Troy, Robert.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Holly Cairns and Kathleen Funchion; Níl, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Cormac Devlin.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 26, to delete lines 15 to 34 and substitute the following:
“Application under section 19 may be made on behalf of relevant person
31. Subject to section 39, an application under section 19 may be made on behalf of a relevant person by—
(a) a person who is authorised by or under an enactment or an order of a court to make such an application, or
(b) where the relevant person is ordinarily resident in a place outside the State, a person who is authorised, under the law of the place, to act on behalf of the relevant person in relation to the making of such an application.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 27, line 4, to delete “The personal representative” and substitute “Subject to section 39, the personal representative”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 27, line 13, to delete “subsections (2) and (3)” and substitute “subsection (2) and section 39”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 27, to delete lines 18 to 25 and substitute the following:
“(2) A personal representative of a deceased applicant shall notify the Chief Deciding Officer in writing of his or her intention to proceed, in accordance with subsection (1)(a), with the application concerned.”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 27, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“Provision supplementary to sections 36, 37 and 38
34. (1) The Chief Deciding Officer shall, where he or she receives an application to which section 36 or 37(2) applies or a notification under section 38(2), satisfy himself or herself that the person concerned is authorised under section 36, 37(2) or 38(1), as the case may be, to make or proceed with the application concerned.
(2) The Chief Deciding Officer may request a person referred to in subsection (1) to provide, within such reasonable period as the Chief Deciding Officer may specify, such contact details, personal data, information or documents as the Chief Deciding Officer may reasonably require for the purposes of that subsection.
(3) Where the Chief Deciding Officer is satisfied that a person referred to in subsection (1) is authorised under section 36, 37(2) or 38(1), as the case may be, to make or proceed with the application concerned—
(a) the Chief Deciding Officer shall provide the person with confirmation of that fact,
(b) the person shall provide the Chief Deciding Officer with such contact details, personal data and information relating to the person (being contact details, personal data and information that are necessary for the performance by the Chief Deciding Officer of his or her functions under this Act) as the Chief Deciding Officer may specify for the purposes of this section, and
(c) for the purposes of this Act—
(i) any person performing a function under this Act shall be entitled to deal with the person as if the person were the applicant, and
(ii) the powers of an applicant under this Act shall be exercisable, and the duties of an applicant under this Act shall be carried out, on behalf of the applicant, by the person.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 27, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
“(3) Where an applicant fails to comply with a request under section 21(2), 23(1) or 27(5) within the period specified by the Chief Deciding Officer under the provision concerned, the Chief Deciding Officer shall send the applicant a notice in writing—
(a) requiring him or her, within 60 days of the date on which the notice is sent to him or her, to comply with the request, and
(b) informing him or her of the effect of subsections (5) and (7).
(4) Where an applicant fails to comply with a request under section 29(5) within the period specified by the appeals officer under that provision, the appeals officer shall send the applicant a notice in writing—
(a) requiring him or her, within 60 days of the date on which the notice is sent to him or her, to comply with the request, and
(b) informing him or her of the effect of subsections (5) to (7).
(5) Where—
(a) a notice under subsection (3) or (4) is sent to an applicant, and
(b) the applicant has not, by the date (in this section referred to as the “relevant date”) that is 60 days after the date on which the notice is sent to the applicant, complied with the requirement referred to in subsection (3)(a) or (4)(a), as the case may be,
the applicant shall be deemed, on and from the relevant date, to have withdrawn his or her application, review or appeal, as the case may be.
(6) Subject to subsection (7), where an applicant—
(a) withdraws in accordance with subsection (1), or
(b) is deemed under subsection (5) to have withdrawn,
his or her application, review or appeal, consideration under this Act of the application, review or appeal, as the case may be, shall be discontinued.
(7) (a) An applicant whose application, review or appeal is deemed under subsection (5) to have been withdrawn may make a request, in such form as may be prescribed, to the Chief Deciding Officer for a direction under paragraph (b).
(b) Subject to paragraph (c), the Chief Deciding Officer, having considered a request under paragraph (a) and where he or she is satisfied that the applicant concerned had good reason for his or her failure to comply with the requirement referred to in subsection (3)(a) or (4)(a), as the case may be, to which the deemed withdrawal relates, may direct that consideration under this Act of the application, review or appeal concerned be resumed on such date as shall be specified in the direction.
(c) The Chief Deciding Officer shall not consider a request under paragraph (a) that is received by him or her on or after the cessation date.”.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 60; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Brophy, Colm.
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carey, Joe.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Foley, Norma.
- Harris, Simon.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Hourigan, Neasa.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lahart, John.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
- Troy, Robert.
Níl
- Andrews, Chris.
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Barry, Mick.
- Berry, Cathal.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Brady, John.
- Browne, Martin.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Cairns, Holly.
- Canney, Seán.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Michael.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Pa.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Funchion, Kathleen.
- Gannon, Gary.
- Gould, Thomas.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kelly, Alan.
- Kenny, Gino.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McDonald, Mary Lou.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Nash, Ged.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Smith, Duncan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Ward, Mark.
- Whitmore, Jennifer.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Cormac Devlin; Níl, Deputies Holly Cairns and Kathleen Funchion.
Amendment declared carried.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 30, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
“Guidelines
39. The Minister may issue guidelines for the purpose of providing practical guidance to any person in respect of the performance by him or her of his or her functions under this Act.”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 31, to delete lines 16 and 17 and substitute the following:
“(a) as soon as possible after the day that is the second anniversary of the establishment day, but not later than 6 months after that day, and
(b) as soon as possible after the cessation date, but not later than 6 months after that date.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 31, to delete line 16 and substitute the following:
“(a) as soon as possible after the second anniversary of the establishment, but not exceeding six months, and”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 31, to delete line 17 and substitute the following:
“(b) as soon as possible after the cessation date, not exceeding six months.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 31, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:
“(3) Where a review under this section is completed, a report in writing of the findings of the review shall be prepared and submitted to the Minister.
(4) The Minister shall cause a report in writing of the findings of the review under subsection (1) to be prepared and submitted to him or her and, as soon as may be after it is so submitted, shall cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 31, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:
“(3) The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Eireann a report on the operation of the Mother and Baby Institution Payments Scheme. A report under this section shall consider the following matters:
(a) the scope for inclusion of additional institutions in Schedule 1;
(b) whether there is scope in the scheme for the inclusion of children and women who were subjected to non-consensual or illegal medical trials or experimentation;
(c) whether there is scope in the scheme for the inclusion of children that were of mixed African race or descent that were placed in an institution and subjected to institutional racism;
(d) whether there is scope in the scheme for the inclusion of children that were nursed out or boarded out;
(e) the continual exclusion of children that were resident for less than 180 days as specified in section 13(1) and (4) and if this should be amended.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 31, to delete lines 36 and 37, and in page 32, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following:
“43. (1) The Chief Deciding Officer, in consultation with the Minister may, by regulation provide for the insertion in Schedule 1 of any institution which was established for the purpose of providing maternity and infant care services and the placement of children for the purposes of adoption or care arrangements, and in respect of which a public body had a regulatory or inspection function.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 34, line 28, to delete “An applicant” and substitute the following:
“(1) A person to whom this section applies”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Amendment No. 65 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 65 not moved.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 34, after line 31, to insert the following:
“(2) This section applies to—
(a) a person who makes an application under section 19,
(b) a person who makes an application to which section 36 or 37(2) applies, or
(c) a person who proceeds under section 38 with an application.”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 not moved.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question put: "That the Bill do now pass."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 62; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Brophy, Colm.
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carey, Joe.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Foley, Norma.
- Harris, Simon.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Hourigan, Neasa.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lahart, John.
- Lawless, James.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
- Troy, Robert.
Níl
- Andrews, Chris.
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Barry, Mick.
- Berry, Cathal.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Brady, John.
- Browne, Martin.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Cairns, Holly.
- Canney, Seán.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Michael.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Pa.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Fitzmaurice, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Funchion, Kathleen.
- Gannon, Gary.
- Gould, Thomas.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kelly, Alan.
- Kenny, Gino.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- McDonald, Mary Lou.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Nash, Ged.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Duncan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Ward, Mark.
- Whitmore, Jennifer.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Cormac Devlin; Níl, Deputies Holly Cairns and Sean Sherlock.
Question declared carried.