Recommittal will be necessary in respect of amendments Nos. 2; 4 to 7, inclusive; 12; 13; 20; 21; 25; 26; 48 to 50, inclusive; and 52. I ask Members to note that by agreeing to the motion to recommit, the House will allow a Committee Stage-style discussion on those amendments. Therefore, Members may speak more than once on each of these amendments. In respect of other amendments, I remind Senators that they may speak only once on Report Stage, except for the proposer of an amendment, who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Also on Report Stage, each non-Government amendment must be seconded.
Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Bill 2022: Report Stage
I ask that as we go through the relevant amendments, we might get some guidance from the Cathaoirleach.
I will ask for that. Amendments Nos. 1, 11 and 42 to 44, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
1. In page 5, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
“Report on operation of Scheme
2. (1) The Minister shall produce a report which will be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas 24 months after the Scheme has commenced.
(2) A report under this section shall consider the following matters:
(a) whether and to what extent persons engaged in the management, administration or operation of relevant institutions should be permitted or required to contribute to the cost of making payments under this Act;
(b) whether the 180 days residence requirement provided for in section 18(1) and (4) should be amended or repealed;
(c) whether the Scheme should be extended so as to make provision for recognising persons who were boarded out as children as relevant persons;
(d) whether there is a need to provide for additional institutions in Schedule 1;
(e) whether the requirement imposed on applicants by section 32(3) should be removed;
(f) whether the duration of the Scheme should be extended;
(g) whether payment rates under the Scheme should be increased;
(h) whether assistance or support such as reparations could be offered to those who were subject to drug trials;
(i) whether funds from the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth in Ireland, could be allocated or reallocated to provide assistance, support or reparations to persons mentioned in this Act.”.
I thank the Minister for his presence here today. I thank the Members who are in the Chamber to discuss the Bill. In particular, I welcome those who have tuned in, those in the Gallery and those who are listening today. I was very conscious over the last few days - given that this will be the final process in this legislation as it goes through both Houses, although it may go back before the Dáil - that I was gathering my thoughts. I intend to use this amendment to outline most of my concerns in relation to this Bill. They are relevant and pertinent to the wide-ranging issues covered in this amendment, which was crafted by me and will cover the issues I think are particularly important, although there are many important aspects.
As I prepared for today and gathered my thoughts, I thought that I would like to put all this in a box somewhere, although I do not want to throw it out. I was reminded of how long all of this has gone on for. I want to say at the very outset that we get hundreds and hundreds of emails, but there was an email that came in this week and many Members will have received it. We spoke about this matter in relation to the hate crime legislation, but it also relates to this Bill. The writer of the email, who spoke on behalf of himself and his wife who was in institutional care, reminded us all of the prayer that we open the Seanad with every day. Many people can say a prayer by rote every day and half-get it. Today, I took the time to ask the assistant clerk to send me that prayer, and I will read it into the record again, because it is relevant, as he said, to our deliberations and our considerations in this House. This prayer is said as part of Standing Orders. It states:
Direct, we beseech Thee, O Lord, our actions by Thy holy inspirations and carry them on by Thy gracious assistance; that every word and work of ours may always begin from Thee, and by Thee be happily ended; through Christ Our Lord. Amen.
That is the prayer that we recite here and it is part of our Standing Orders. It reminded me of a piece that was in The Irish Times by the former Archdeacon, Gordon Linney, who is a former rector of Glenageary parish in Dún Laoghaire. He has a piece in The Irish Times every Saturday called "Thinking Anew". He recited and made reference to a very famous hymn, which I particularly like, by Richard Gillard, which states:
We are pilgrims on a journey
Fellow travelers on the road
We are here to help each other
Walk the mile and bear the load.
That is it. Some may that is all a bit trite or a bit religious. However, I do not have any difficulty with it; I have great admiration for the religious. I want to make that point here and now. Many of them have been much maligned in the discussions about institutional care and in discussions in relation to their role. I can say as someone who has travelled that road and who has interfaced with religious people of all sides of opinion that there are many good people there. I would not like to think that somehow they would be lost in all this debate, because I think it is important that they, too, are recognised. Many of them, too, were victims in relation to institutional upbringings and institutional regimes. Many of them had no options and were not given the supports. Remember, the State itself did not stand up to the plate for them on many occasions. Yes, there were evil people there who did things in the name of the Church and in the name of their belief. They were misguided and they were wrong and they should be called out for that. Yet, there were many good people too. It is really important that I open up with that.
My amendment deals with a number of issues to which the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, has responded before in my absence. I read his response, so I know what he may or may not say. I know he has put review mechanisms into the Bill and I acknowledge that too. However, it is critically important before I go any further in relation to the issues to acknowledge the important work that was done by the joint Oireachtas committee on children. I want to acknowledge that this work was done by a number of Deputies and Senators. I note in particular Senators Clonan, McGreehan, O'Sullivan, Ruane and Seery Kearney, some of whom are here with us today. I do not knock the work. I think they did a great job. I read every line of the transcript in relation to this process. More importantly, I was very interested in the Minister's strong recommendations.
As someone who sits on two joint Oireachtas committees, I know that when we do pre-legislative scrutiny of legislation, we have a lot of debate and ongoing discussions and we ultimately make recommendations. I always come to the House and make a strong and robust case that these recommendations are to be put across the line. That has not altogether been the case. I do not know why and I will not make any judgment call on that, but I am disappointed that we have not seen that robust defence and articulation of the strong recommendations. I went back and viewed the video tapes and the conversations in this committee. There was a lot of work, passion, conviction, shared experience and shared knowledge and expectation.
There was a lot of expectation created by this committee's report for people outside of the organisation who expected redress. That has not shone through in this legislation process. Perhaps that is for another day and a review of parliamentary democracy and how we do our parliamentary business. The strong recommendations are interesting, as are the foreword remarks by the Cathaoirleach of the committee, Deputy Kathleen Funchion. I want to acknowledge the enormous work, commitment and dedication she has given to this issue.
Some of the key recommendations include that the six month residency requirement for children be removed. Anyone who was resident in the institution should be entitled to payment regardless of the time spent there. Those boarded out should be included in the scheme. This is part of my amendment. I am deeply concerned about those who were boarded out of these institutions, many illegally. There was no parental consent. It was questionable who was in loco parentis as these children were farmed out. I have had many of these people in my office. I have had many of them come into the restaurant in Leinster House and break bread and share their experiences with me and some of my staff in my office. It is harrowing what has happened to them. Yet today if we pass this legislation we are doing nothing for them. We are not doing anything for these people who were farmed out at seven, eight and nine years of age. I particularly think of a cohort of men that came from Galway and one man who happened to be here on his 75th birthday. I said to him that I was surprised that it was his birthday. He told me that they did not really mark their birthdays in relation to this. The boarding out houses are very much pertinent to and part of this amendment-----
I do not wish to disturb the Senator's very interesting contribution but we are not on Second Stage. We are debating amendments individually so please speak to the amendment.
I am speaking only to my amendment No. 1. Is that okay?
Okay. That is the reference to that. As I said in my opening remarks, I intend to concentrate all of my efforts today on this. I do not want to keep getting up here and repeating the same old story. Even now, I find it exceptionally difficult to keep saying the same thing. This is my swansong to a certain extent, in relation to this legislation. I want to thank the members of the committee. I am sorry they felt it was not possible to somehow get it over the line. I recognise that they are part of a Government. They have to work collaboratively and they do not get everything the way they would like it. I would have thought that was important.
Again, in relation to my amendment, I want to acknowledge the important and great work of the Oireachtas Library & Research Service. If the task was difficult, it was made less difficult by them. They summarise each of the recommendations of the pre-legislative scrutiny. They highlight all those that have not got through. They go on to highlight the importance of the issues such as the boarding out, and minors under the age of six months. None of these issues has been covered but they have highlighted these. They have done a service to parliamentary democracy. I want to thank the staff who led that work and did all that was involved. It was important. I want to quote here from their report on page 40 of the Bills Digest on this Bill:
The committee made 21 recommendations, including: The six month residency required for children must be removed. Anyone who was resident in one of the institutions should be entitled to a payment regardless of the time they spent there.
The relevant religious congregations and organisations must contribute significant finances to fund the scheme.
The Minister has made it very clear that he wants a separate track on that. However, it is a focus and it was part of the committee's work and part of the committee's recommendations pertinent to this particular Bill. I accept that the Minister is walking away on that. I am committed in a matter of days now, to coming back with an item on the Seanad agenda on this. I have examined the indemnity scheme in great detail, with the signatures of all the people who signed up to it. I have done a bit of research and I have had external research done on the abysmal failings of some people to live up to what is an honour and a commitment. They have not done so. It is incumbent on Government to chase people who sign up to a Government agreement, who get an indemnity from this State from further prosecution, and then do not keep their side of the bargain. That did not happen in all cases but it happened in quite a lot. That is another issue.
The committee recommended that "those boarded out should be included in the scheme and entitled to redress" but, no, it is not in the legislation. Another recommendation reads: "The waiver should be removed from the scheme". I want to thank the Minister. He shared a letter with Senator Higgins on that.
A further recommendation reads: "The Bill must embody a trauma-informed response, including trauma of counselling and compensation". I think I have made my point of where we are on that. It is only right and proper and fair that we should deal with it. Senator McGreehan was quoted on 28 May in the Mail on Sunday regarding her response at a previous meeting here to the great man Mr. Tony Kelly and her sadness about it all and she was right. She touched very emotionally on it. We can do something for Mr. Kelly. We can vote against the Government if it does not include the objectives that Mr. Kelly sought. If Mr. Kelly sought them, we can include them. That is it. I have spoken to many people and worked with Mr. Kelly myself. I know what he wanted to achieve. I say it here and now, this article was brought to my attention. I believe it was right and good and I want to acknowledge the Senator for acknowledging it here in the House. We now have an opportunity. This is about legacy. This is about supporting people some of whom are now no longer in this world and did not see achieved what Mr. Kelly sought to achieve.
I also want to take the opportunity to thank Ms Claire McGettrick, Dr. Katherine O'Donnell, Ms Maeve O'Rourke, Mr. James Smith and Ms Maria Steen for their work on the key issues that I am talking about here regarding that amendment.
We can hear all the lectures about people who did not walk the road, who did not experience the hurt and the isolation. We can also say that we all know because every one of our families have been touched by the phenomenon of children born out of marriage. Young girls, sisters, aunts, nieces were shoved off to the UK or to the cities to have their children in secret because of societal condemnation and ridicule. How many of us reached out many years later to reconnect with the people we knew in our own families and experiences that we should have reached out to? That is the challenge for each and every one of us. There is no family in this country that has not been touched by the experience of institutional care and the rejection of young women who had children out of marriage. That is an important point.
I believe it only right and fair that we address the issue of the vaccine trials. The record of the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste is strong on the issues that I have raised. They have said that it had been a difficult time. They believe that justice needs to be done. As we know, the vaccine trials happened in many institutions. I will not go into a history lecture on that. However, I want to acknowledge the Irish Examiner and the brave journalists there who ran many a story about Bessborough Mother and Baby Home and the vaccine trials there. I speak of the ones myself that I knew and experienced in Dún Laoghaire in the Bird's Nest children's home. There are many others all over this country. There were trials in Navan and Westmeath among others. What are we saying to those people? We are saying "No redress". There is no real justice for them.
What about all the boarded out children who were illegally taken and transported as agricultural slave labour? What are we doing for them? There is no provision for them in this legislation.
What about the children from Africa and Asia who were subjected to horrendous racial discrimination? They had no support and were segregated within a sub segregation in some institutions and within our State education system. I know many of them.
Many of them are my friends and many are regularly in my home, telling me their stories. Many of them are finding it very difficult to move on. Many of them are in public life and one would come across them much more often than one would expect.
What are we doing about all the abused children who had disabilities, who were placed in care and who were, many times, forgotten? They had no voice and no advocate, nobody to do anything for them. We know this is true. It is not as if we do not know. We know that they were left in institutions.
I have dealt with the issues of child labour and forced adoptions. I want to touch on the issue of girls in care who had children and then to compound the issue, those children were taken from them. Let us think of the many mothers who took their oldest daughter's child and said:
Shut your mouth, tell nobody. She's mine now. I will pretend I am her mother. I will arrange with the Church for the necessary baptismal certificate.
Those certificates cannot be authentic. Daughters were imprisoned in a set of circumstances called family where they could not be the mother to their own daughter but had to pretend to be her sister. These things happened and they matter.
Denial of parental access is another issue and I speak from experience here. I do not like standing up and talking about my own personal experience but that is all I can speak about and share with the Minister here today. Many legal parents who arrived at the door of an institution were shunned and refused access to their children. Where was the unity there? Where was the support? How could we have a situation where we had six or seven children from the same family in six or seven different institutions in the city of Dublin in the 1960s and no one seemed to care? We see from evidence of ongoing correspondence with the HSE, or the health board as it was then, and these institutions that there was denial when parents arrived at the door to claim their children when their circumstances changed. They were told that their children were gone. They were told, "They've gone to America", "They've gone to Australia", "They've been adopted", "Leave them alone, they have a chance of a new life, a new beginning. How selfish of you to knock on the door and seek them".
We talked about the trauma and the forced separation. We talked about the denial of family records. The Minister talks about getting records and I salute him but many have been destroyed or burnt. Many a lie has been hidden for generations and generations. Let us consider the injustice of it, the injustice of detention and the failure of ongoing engagement. All of this really touches on what I have to say here today.
People suffered in the past from great isolation. In the context of such isolating experiences, no matter how close one is to others or how close a supportive friend wants to be, no one can fully enter another's pain or anguish. The people who have travelled on the road for so long have waited for justice and while the Bill is not going to give them everything, I want to acknowledge that it will give them a lot. I also want to acknowledge the Minister in particular because I have travelled the road with him since he became Minister and engaged with him. I want to thank his office, genuinely, for its openness to dialogue and willingness to engage with me on anything I have ever asked. I have found him and his officials forthcoming and I want to acknowledge that here today.
It is a difficult story and a difficult journey. I am greatly privileged - and I mean this sincerely - to be able to be here and to be able to stand on my own two feet to articulate some, though not all, of my emotions and my experiences. I am one of the privileged ones. I am one of the lucky ones. I am not the brightest one but I was lucky because I had an indomitable spirit that never accepted the word "No". The more people said "No" to me and the more doors that were closed to me, the more I pushed back.
There were good people in these institutions and there are good people in government. We are shortchanging them by leaving those three critical areas out. I am concerned about those subject to vaccine trials. Some of them never lived and we need to look again at the death registers in many of these institutions. I am concerned about those who were brutalised, physically, emotionally and sexually, in our State care system. Those who were in institutions for less than six months have no redress under this scheme. We have touched on the vaccine trials and on those who were boarded out. We do not really have any sense of those who were farmed out. I think there were thousands but we have no real sense of that because of the illegality of the whole thing, how it was done and how they were transferred. I know from people coming to me and sharing their experiences that they were farmed out as child labourers.
I will finish with a lovely story. One man came to me and told me that he was farmed out to "very nice people" - there were good experiences too - and they left him their farm in Galway. However, he was never formally adopted so he was clobbered for the full tax. That is an injustice and is something we can look at in the future. How can we in some way repay children who were the beneficiaries of a smallholding or a farm and were clobbered for capital gains tax? We have had a conversation about this and I know the Minister has some ideas around it. I ask him to deal with it.
I do not intend to say much more about the Bill. I intend to fold my documents away. I can never erase my memories and why would I want to? As long as I am here, living and in the Oireachtas, I will continue to champion those who need to be championed. I lived in three institutions, from day one right up until my teens. No one gave me a free education. My happiest day was when I earned my first wage and bought a bicycle, which gave me the freedom to move and to meet people.
We see the world as we stand and our experiences in it, and we bring those to our work. Each and every one of us here in this House brings our own experience to this Parliament and shares it. I have always said to the people who went before me that I would continue to advocate for them. I told the people I left behind me that I would champion their rights too because that is empowering in itself to be a voice for them. They were effectively my brothers and sisters, through a strange set of circumstances. The bond is strong and we continue to maintain contact. I would be failing and would be unable to rest if I did not champion their causes. Let us think about this and see what we can do. If the Minister cannot address it in this Bill, he should commit to twin-track legislation that will address the aforementioned key issues of children exposed to vaccine trials, children who were illegally farmed out as labourers with no consent and children who were in institutions for less than six months. They need our support. We talk about cherishing the children of this nation equally; let us demonstrate that. We should remind ourselves when we say that prayer every day that it is not meaningless. Do we want those inspirations? Do we want to walk the road of the marginalised and disadvantaged? Do we want to be strong advocates, to tackle injustice and to support people? I hope that somehow we can see a way to bring forward strong recommendations in this regard.
I join others in expressing my support for amendment No. 1. There is not a huge amount that I can add to what has been said regarding its impact and necessity. The Civil Engagement Group has co-signed that amendment. I wish to speak on Government amendments Nos. 42 and 43, which are in this grouping, tease them out and get some clarification on them. Those two amendments are a partial acceptance of our proposals on Committee Stage where we called for the review to include analysis of who applied for the scheme and was deemed ineligible as a result of the 180-day and 90-day residency requirements. However, amendment No. 42 does not specifically reference this. It references those who are "entitled to or eligible for" in the new section that would be added on page 34. The amendment reads thus: "(b) in relation to each payment and service referred to in section 18, the proportion of applicants who— ". It then lists the particular areas that will be considered. Will that include data not only on those who were ineligible within the terms of the scheme? Will data on the 180-day period be captured? Will it cover not just people who appear to be eligible within the current framework, but also those who do not currently fit within the framework?
Even though it does not name that and is not specific, it should achieve a similar aim and such a breakdown should be included in the review. We hope that will eventually lead to a widening of the scheme in future, following the review if we were to see who was ineligible at that stage. Any review that properly examines the scheme would clearly find in favour of including all survivors, who spent any amount of time in the institutions. Amendment No. 43 also includes an examination of the training of those in the offices of the chief deciding officer within the review, which we also raised as a concern. Although these changes are minor, we hope they open up something wider, especially as it relates to amendment No. 42. Will the Minister speak to the intention of amendment No. 42 and how that data could be used to review the current framework and its obvious gaps as it relates to some survivors?
I wish to speak to amendment No. 44. It is the only Sinn Féin amendment that has been allowed to be discussed today, at this final opportunity to discuss this Bill. I wish to read the amendment into the record, so that those watching at home can understand our position. It proposes that:
In page 35, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“(4) The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the operation of the Mother and Baby Institution Payments Scheme. A report under this section shall consider the following matters:
(a) whether the level of payments under the Scheme are adequate and if they should be increased;
(b) whether eligibility for a general payment should be extended to all relevant persons who were resident in a relevant institution for any period of time, including those who were resident for less than 180 days;
(c) whether eligibility for a general payment should be extended to all relevant persons who were resident in a relevant institution and subjected to illegal vaccine trials or any other medical experimentation on relevant persons;
(d) whether additional institutions, including those in which children were placed in a nursed out or boarded out arrangement by a local authority, health board, or other institution in respect of which a public body had a regulatory or inspection function, should be inserted in Schedule 1;
(e) whether additional institutions, including those in which children of mixed race were placed, and in respect of which a public body had a regulatory or inspection function should be inserted in Schedule 1;
(f) the extent to which the Scheme is in compliance with any determination by a judicial review or an international human rights treaty body relating to remedies for any person who resided in an institution in which children were placed, either directly or from a relevant institution under Schedule 1, and in respect of which a public body had a regulatory or inspection function.”.
All we can do at this point is call for this report on all of the key points we called out at each and every Stage of this Bill. As the Minister knows very well, this Bill is fundamentally flawed. Sinn Féin will vote against this Bill. We will do so because people are being arbitrarily excluded from the scheme. Some 24,000 of them, who spent fewer than six months in an institution. It is an arbitrary figure the Minister has never been able to explain or justify. Each time I have asked him this question, he has never once come back with a clear response. Today is the last opportunity. I call on him to please justify excluding those people with fewer than six months' experience in one of these institutions. He has again excluded those who were boarded out. How on earth can he stand over this? I remember meeting a man in west Cork several years ago, who explained to me how from the age of five he was out thinning turnips for a farmer in the fields. He was one of these boarded out children, subjected to slave labour. The Minister has excluded him from this scheme. He has excluded thousands of others like him from this scheme. I have to ask, on behalf of those watching at home and on behalf of our guests here as well, how it came to this. How on earth can he justify excluding these thousands of people? In doing so, he is ensuring the State is failing the survivors of mother and baby homes again, in 2023. I do not believe, when the Minister set out to become involved in politics, that this was his aim. I know he has a background in human rights. I need to understand. More importantly, the survivors need to understand how in God's name he justifies excluding all of these thousands of people. Let us be clear, the primary responsibility falls on him. He is the Minister. He is the person who makes these decisions. He has decided to exclude these people. It is grossly unfair.
Like my colleague, Senator Boyhan, I am finding it harder to speak on these issues at this stage because the arguments have been so well rehearsed. Like him, I pay tribute to the Oireachtas joint committee. I want to pay particular tribute to my colleague, Deputy Funchion, who, along with her colleagues produced an excellent report. It was a report, which in key aspects, the Minister has chosen to ignore. He will be remembered, not as the Minister who resolved these issues but as the Minister who excluded thousands of survivors from the justice they are surely entitled to. In 2023, that is his legacy. For one last time, I ask him. I only have this opportunity to speak. I will not get the opportunity to speak again. That is how it works on Report Stage. It is the only amendment from Sinn Féin. Obviously I will support other amendments. I pay tribute again to Senator Boyhan, for his eloquence and passion with everything he has said again today. Indeed, I pay tribute to my colleagues in civil engagement, not just to Senator Ruane, but to Senator Higgins, who has led superbly on this issue on every Stage. However, we are now at the closing gate and all we can do in opposition is call out the political accountability for these actions. The political accountability belongs to the Minister, and his colleagues in Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Green Party, and to each and every one of those Senators who will vote for the Minister's Bill and against the interests of thousands of people he has chosen to exclude. All the nice words in the world will not change that. As I have said before, most of us will be thrown out of here at some point and all we can do is look back on our legacy. We can look back on whether we did the right thing at the most crucial times. This is one of those times. I call again on Government Senators to vote against this Bill. It is grossly unfair. This is our last opportunity. I ask the Minister to please give me a straight response to a straight question. How does he justify excluding 24,000 people under this arbitrary six-month figure? How does he justify excluding the thousands of people who were boarded out, that is, the survivors of the mother and baby homes? It is a disgraceful decision. He must give us a straight answer.
I second Senator Boyhan's amendment. I have known Victor since I came into politics and I have to say that I stand here in awe of the man. The courage he has shown from his first day in the Senate, when he brought this issue to the floor of the Senate on his first day. He has never, ever backed down. He has put his private life on the public stage, and he has been the strongest advocate I have ever known in my life. Today, I believe he has spoken for the last time on this Bill. To my mind, the amendments he has put forward are perfectly reasonable. Let us talk about a few things. Let us talk about the 1960s and 1970s before many in this room were born. Young girls who fell pregnant in Galway were sent to a local priest, and the priest organised for their internment; for their period of holiday away from the city. Some went to institutions. Some went to families. All suffered the same thing. They were imprisoned for the period of their confinement - of their pregnancy. Many never returned. Many carried the pain they suffered right through their lives and to the grave. Nothing we can do in this House is going to take away that pain. Yet, we talk all the time in this country about responsibility and about the Constitution we have and how it looks after the State.
The Constitution did not mean a continental damn to those girls who were pregnant and even less to those children born out of those pregnancies. As Senator Boyhan rightly pointed out, if people happened to be born as a result of a mixed-race engagement, they were even further discriminated against.
Speaking about the farming out of children, I had occasion in my life to meet a man once who was in his 70s. He had been working for the same farmer from the day he left the institution. This man was served his three meals a day in the farmer's house - his breakfast, his lunch and his dinner. He was paid a small wage that allowed him to have a few pints after a hard day's work. I met this man when he was in his 70s and he was still living in the barn on that farm. He was not living in the house. Let us think of the outrage the book, Roots, caused in its time. People were treated as animals. When they failed to find birth certificates for people, they looked to the animal registration records for them and that is where they found them. The man I am referring to was held in no greater esteem. He is long since dead and he had no family. He was born in an institution and he left it to become imprisoned on a relatively generous farm, where he was well looked after with his three meals a day, his clothes and a few bob for pints, but he lived in a barn along with the other animals.
This is what we are talking about here. I refer to the points made by Senators Gavan and Boyhan and my other colleagues. A colleague of mine sitting in the Gallery today has put her private life into the public domain. None of us sitting in this room, in our wildest dreams, can understand what these people went through. This State is awash with money. Money is coming out of every corner of this State. We are talking about having a budget surplus this year of €11 billion and a possible surplus next year of €16 billion. Good God Almighty tonight, the €24,000 that Senator Gavan mentioned is a pittance.
Let us think of all the professional people in this country who engaged in this system and did nothing. I commend the Minister on what he is doing. He has at least taken a step to try to find some recompense for these people. Teachers, gardaí, priests, nuns, doctors and people in every profession we can think of were involved in this in one way or another and they covered it up. Senator Boyhan has pointed out that commitments made by institutions have never been lived up to. They could not give a continental damn. Is this Christian Ireland? I am terribly sorry my colleague read the prayer into the record today because prayer means sweet damn all in this country when it comes to the way we treated these children. Where was the State and the Constitution to look after these children?
Some, but not all, were brutalised. I have had conversations with a few girls I knew who had children out of wedlock. Some had good experiences and others had terrible ones. The 180 days in this context, to my mind, is a nonsense. At the end of the day, if people had to walk through one of those places and stay in it for two days, it was two days too long. I ask the Minister to take on board the proposed amendment of Senator Boyhan. If nothing else, this would show that the State is genuinely concerned with trying to make it up to those we absolutely destroyed. We ruined their young lives and took them away from their families.
Regarding the point Senator Boyhan made about a child being born into a family, the mother being urged to shut up and say nothing, while some other woman took over as the mother, I am aware of an instance where that took place. The young man was brought up as a brother and not as a son. It was one of those great secrets that everybody in the village knew about but about which nobody spoke. He was denied access to his mother and his mother was denied access to her son in the sense of a mother-and-son relationship. They were forced into a sister-and-brother relationship and this was a form of imprisonment that nobody can justify.
While the Minister is trying to do the right thing here, I urge him to go the full step. I ask him to ensure that when he leaves this matter behind him, he leaves nothing undone or unsaid. I urge him to ensure that we put the children and the women who were brutalised, either physically or mentally or a combination of both, by this country first and to hell with the begrudgers. The money is there to do this, so let us do it. The Taoiseach said the other day that he had no difficulty with one-off payments and this was not committing the State to future payments. Let us then use some of this money. In many cases, I am sure it will make no bloody difference anyway, but let us do what we can. I will leave my contribution at this. There is no point in dragging this out. I trust that if the Minister cannot accept the proposed amendment, he will go down the dual route my colleague has suggested.
I am not going to speak for terribly long on this issue. As I believe this is, though, the last time we will address this matter, I feel I should speak on it. I am acutely aware that with every day that passes, time is slipping away from those who had their lives cruelly and irrevocably changed, and sometimes even destroyed, by this brutal regime that the State willingly supported. These people deserve justice. Some of them are going to get justice under the auspices of the provisions of this Bill. It is going to pass. There is no question about it because Government Senators are going to support it. This ensures it will pass regardless of what has been said in this House.
Many people will, therefore, get justice, but many other people will not. My colleague, Senator Boyhan, outlined several groups of people who will not. He referred to those involved in vaccine trials, those boarded out of the homes and those who were there for less than six months. Many of us on this side of the Chamber have spoken at length about these groups. I put my name, along with the other Senators in the Labour Party grouping, to amendment No. 1. This is a more than reasonable amendment to request changes in the legislation. The Labour Party will also support many other proposed amendments, but amendment No. 1, in particular, provides an opportunity for the Government to signal that it has heard what people on this side of the House have said. The Government should examine the issues that we feel are not currently covered or not adequately covered in the legislation as part of the report. It is not an unreasonable thing to seek.
Most of us are not seeking these changes based on our personal experiences. I must give credit to Senator Boyhan who has led us in this Chamber, not only on this legislation but on this topic overall. I know there are other people who walk through the corridors of Leinster House for whom this experience is part of their lives and reality. There are, then, some people whom this legislation will directly affect. I am not going to keep going on about this because I could not possibly follow on from what some of the previous speakers have said so eloquently, and not just today but in previous contributions on this matter as well. Asking for a report, however, that would take into consideration all the issues we have outlined and are concerned about, and not only to those of us in this Chamber because many citizens are concerned about these issues as well, would be a meaningful action for the Government to take. It would be a meaningful action and gesture for the Government to take to demonstrate it has heard what has been said and that it recognises that these issues and groups are not currently being considered but that it will do so. If the Minister cannot accept this amendment, I ask him to give a verbal commitment that these areas will be explored.
I recognise the work the Government has done on this issue. As I said, many people will get justice in the context of the provisions of the proposed legislation but many others will not. It is not right when we are trying to right the wrongs of the past to only right the wrongs for some people. We must seek to right the wrongs for all those people affected by this system and by the intolerable and cruel regime that the Governments of the day stood by and supported. If the Minister cannot accept this amendment, I ask him to at least offer some words of comfort by stating these areas will be looked at in future by the Government. I say this because, as I said previously, this Bill is going to pass. I have no doubts about this, but I find it very hard to stomach the fact that we will go forward and not have an opportunity to offer justice to the other groups of people that have been outlined. These people were involved in the vaccine trials, boarded out or were in the institutions for less than six months. If there is something the Minister can say, commit to or offer, I ask him to do so. Otherwise, this leaves an unfortunate sullying of his legacy, because he has done incredible work on this issue. I reiterate again that many people will be able to get justice because of this Bill, but some will not. It is the responsibility of the Government to listen to those other voices and to the issues that have been raised in this House and address whether something is going to be done in future for the people in these groups.
I thank Senator Boyhan for his amendment and detailed contribution. I also thank the other Senators for their contributions. This Bill already provides for a review of the operation of the scheme, with an overall review under section 49 and an annual review under section 12. I am not in a position to accept these two amendments; however, I will bring forward my own amendments, related to matters a number of Senators have already spoken about. They take account of some of the issues raised on Committee Stage and I hope I can provide additional clarity on them. I also hope, in the context of my remarks, that I can provide some degree of clarity on other elements.
As I outlined in committee proceedings, the development of the proposals for this scheme has been a complex task. It has taken time to get to the point where the Bill is close to being passed by both Houses. Work is ongoing to put in place significant infrastructure to run this scheme because tens of thousands of people will apply. Due to the complexity of the legislation, it is important that reviews, both at the end of the process and annual, are focused on what the legislation is about and to ensure it operates properly. I spoke particularly on Committee Stage when there were calls for reviews to be undertaken on other issues outside the scope of this scheme. I felt that in the first year of the scheme, we need to focus on making sure it operates effectively and delivers these payments for the people who apply.
I also discussed, at length, I believe, on Committee Stage, how the Government arrived at the particular categories around eligibility for this particular scheme. I have always made the point that this scheme must be seen as one part of a range of Government responses, which are set out in the action plan. The Bill recognises that different survivors and former residents of these institutions have different priorities in terms of the actions they want the State to undertake. That range of responses began with the Taoiseach's State apology and include the opening of a dedicated counselling service for former residents and survivors at no cost. It has involved two crucial pieces of legislation passed last year, the first of which was the Birth Information and Tracing Act 2022. More than 5,000 people have had their queries for information addressed under that scheme. The second was Institutional Burials Act 2022, on foot of which I recently appointed a director of the authorised intervention agency to intervene in Tuam. This will allow the process for excavating that site to be started, as well as identifying the remains of children interred and returning them to their families. We are also working on a dedicated records and memorial centre, acting as a site of conscience and of memorialisation where the history of these institutions can be told and records can be contained, maintained and provided to individuals and to those looking to write the history of this period of our nation. I am also in the process of appointing a special advocate, whose role will be to amplify the voices of survivors, particularly in the delivery of services. That is a broad, State-based response of which this Bill forms one element.
Regarding some of the specific points raised, I will particularly try to address as many of Senator Boyhan's points as possible. Senator Boyhan referenced in his amendment that the extent to which those involved in the management and operation of institutions should be required to contribute to the costs of the scheme should be examined in a review. I recently appointed an independent negotiator, Sheila Nunan, to undertake this role to engage with religious institutions and orders involved in running these institutions. I met seven of these orders and the Primate of the Church of Ireland in this context. It is important that these negotiations are allowed to take place in a confidential context. The provision of payments and enhanced medical cards to former residents should not be dependent on the outcome of these negotiations. I have prioritised the delivery of this Bill, for which I make no apologies. Getting this Bill up and running is the most important thing. The other set of negotiations is ongoing. An end will come to those negotiations and whatever the conclusion, the Houses will be informed of the outcome. Regarding the points about the payments rate for the scheme, they are modelled on the approach taken under the Magdalen restorative justice ex gratia scheme. I secured, in the process of bringing this legislation forward, I secured Government agreement to improve the overall approach to payments. We introduced more refined payment bands. I also introduced an amendment to the Bill in order that a temporary absence from an institution of up to 180 days can be included when calculating a person's total duration in an institution, recognising that people were often sick and in hospital and therefore out of an institution on foot of the poor treatment they received within that particular institution.
We have discussed the legal waiver in some detail in this House. A legal waiver is provided for under this legislation but only at the point when the applicant accepts an offer of financial payment is that legal waiver required. The applicants will know exactly what they are being offered beforehand, which will allow them to make their determination as to whether to sign the legal waiver. There is provision for some legal aid to assist in legal advice in order that an applicant receives legal advice before he or she makes that determination. Unlike in previous schemes, the legal waiver is not tied to any restriction on the ability to discuss the amount awarded or anything like that.
With regard to the addition of other institutions, this Bill contains a provision, in section 50, which allows for the insertion of additional institutions, in accordance with certain criteria. That followed on from a recommendation of the pre-legislative scrutiny process. On the scope of general payments under the scheme, I previously outlined that the approach to the scheme is to provide an all-encompassing, general payment to eligible applicants in recognition of the time spent, the harsh conditions, emotional abuse, other forms of mistreatment, stigma and trauma individuals experienced while resident in a mother and baby or county home institution. We designed the scheme in that way so it can be non-adversarial, learning from previous schemes and redress processes in which there was an individualised element and an element of cross-examination. In reviewing those schemes, that process was regarded as re-traumatising. We did this to provide as straightforward a scheme for survivors as possible. As we made a decision not to provide for individualised examination, we cannot undertake an individualised examination of the experience of boarded-out children when they were boarded out. Senator Boyhan spoke about how those experiences were very mixed; some were positive, while some were absolutely shocking. We also must recognise that people were not just boarded out from these institutions - they were also boarded out due to other circumstances. I wish to clarify, as I have put on the record previously and is important to reiterate, that any child who was boarded out from a mother and baby or county home institution and was in that institution for more than six months prior to being boarded out qualifies for this scheme.
Many children were boarded out from mother and baby institutions at a young age of four, five or six, and were in that particular institution for a significant period of time and will be able to qualify under this legislation. That taxation issue, which is maybe narrow in the overall context, is being looked at.
The report proposed under amendment No. 44 seeks the consideration of the extent to which the scheme is in compliance with any determination by a judicial review or an international human rights treaty body. As stated in committee proceedings, I am not in a position to accept that particular amendment, but I can put it on the record that should an examination of the scheme be required with regard to its compliance with any matter, particularly if there is a ruling of an international body, that will obviously be taken seriously by the Government of the day. I can only assume it will be. We know many significant changes to Irish law have taken place as the result of decisions of international or European human rights bodies.
I assure Senator Boyhan that we have spoken about the issue of the vaccine trials. I very much hear what he says about a specific line of payment being provided for those who were subject to non-consensual vaccine trials. As the Senator knows, I have engaged with one of the companies on this. I have not come back with a successful outcome, to be frank. All I can say is that I am happy to continue to engage with the Senator on this issue. I cannot give an absolute commitment on what the outcome of that will be. I said on Committee Stage and will say again that I am happy to continue to engage with the Senator on that particular issue.
Finally, it is important to say that, notwithstanding the outcome of any of the reviews of the matter raised in these amendments, it is of course open to any subsequent, future government to make relevant changes to this legislation as it sees fit.
The amendments that I am proposing are on foot of points raised on Committee Stage. I said there were two particular issues. Officials engaged with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel in respect of those. The first relates to the outcome of the scheme. Many of the Committee Stage amendments were seeking reports which included information on the number of applications to the scheme which are unsuccessful, particularly because an applicant does not meet the requirement of having spent 180 days or more in an institution. It was always anticipated that any reports prepared on the scheme would include information on outcomes, both successful and unsuccessful. However, amendment No. 11, in respect of the annual report, and amendment No. 42, on the review of the operation of the scheme, provide that it is now specified in the Bill that these reports will include information on applications and determinations, both successful and unsuccessful.
I hope I will answer Senator Ruane's point here. If anybody who applies to the scheme is unsuccessful for the particular reason that they do not meet the 180-day criteria, that will be recognised in the report. Obviously, where a person does not apply to the scheme, we cannot measure that, but if anyone applies and is unsuccessful for that reason, that will be recognised in the report.
The second issue that came up on Committee Stage was our legislative requirement for trauma-informed training for those who will be operating the scheme. I discussed that with officials. We just felt that a mandatory, very specific training requirement in legislation was the right way to go. I spoke on Committee Stage about the fact that we are already providing for trauma-informed training for those who will be operating this scheme. What we think helps to address this is that the annual and final report will set out the training that people operating the scheme undertook. It will be both the annual report and final report, so it will be clear to everybody that training has been provided for those who will be operating the scheme.
I thank Senators for raising these issues. The changes that we are proposing will strengthen both the reporting mechanism and indeed the overall legislation.
What does one say to all of that? At the outset, the Minister has accepted no amendments at any part of the process in this House. That is the record. I said before, from my experience of working with the Minister, that I believe he would have gone further. He may ask how I believe that. I talk to enough people and I listen to enough people in the corridors of power, both in Leinster House and in other places. I absolutely do not doubt the Minister's commitment. I also recognise the issue with the tripartite coalition Government, where one cannot win all of the battles and campaigns. We cannot always be successful in our advocacy work. We are pilgrims on a journey and I believe in continuing to journey. I do not believe in giving up heart. I do not take things personally, although I am impacted by them personally, because that would not be the right thing to do as a politician and as someone who believes that the power of advocacy is important in these Houses. I want to say that. I try to be respectful to everybody. They are entitled to their different opinions.
In responding to the Minister's response on these amendments, we touched on a number of issues. To remind ourselves, we touched on and hoped we could extend this scheme beyond issues like abuse in the boarding out, the adoptive placements, those abused with forced labour, the vaccine trials, the racial and disability-based discrimination, or the illegal expatriation outside of the State for adoption. There are a number of issues relating to that. The Minister will be conscious, as I and people in this Seanad Chamber are conscious, as are people listening in, that many people gave personal testimony in a non-adversarial way. How that was interpreted and reported was at some variance to their personal experience and personal story. That was all subject to legal proceedings and other pieces and I do not want to rehash it all here because many of those people are not here and that would not be the right thing to do either.
I want to say a few things in finishing up. Money cannot be and should not be an excuse for a report. When I moved this, I originally said 12 months, which is one year, then I moved the second amendment, which was for 24 months. The Minister and everybody else in government may not be in office. They may be elected but they may not be in office. I may not even be elected here. I may not even choose to be elected here. Many of us may have gone on to other things. Many Members may have gone from this House to the Lower House. These are the musical chairs of politics and life. I think we will have other opportunities. I am mindful of the Opposition here today who have stuck with this. I thank them. I particularly thank the Civil Engagement Group, my own Independent Group, the Labour Party group and indeed Sinn Féin for all of their support. We have done our bit on this.
I want to stay focused in response to the amendments that the Minister has responded to. I will just say that we will have other opportunities. We cannot lose hope. I say that meaningfully. I got up this morning and thought this was like the last day of school. This is the last day this year that I have to come in and talk about this particular issue. That is not to say I am going to give up on it. I am going to continue. We will have a new administration. It is incumbent on us in the Opposition, who have had a frustrating time in trying to make any inroads because the Minister has not accepted any of our amendments. The Government Senators here have not tabled any amendments. That is telling in itself. I talked about the committee work and read out their names. They did not bring forward any proposals. This is why we do advocacy, articulate views, represent the people in these Chambers and make legislation. I hear what the Minister is saying and I am disappointed.
I looked at The Irish Times the other day and Cliff Taylor had a piece on how the State should spend a €16 billion surplus, which listed 16 ideas. I thought I would love to add a 17th idea. I just did not get time to write to The Irish Times, but it was just to say that we could ring-fence money for these people. We are not talking about a lot of people. In that context, I am also conscious, as Senator Hoey said, while I will not say "justice" because I do not think anyone will get justice from this, that there are many people who will get a measure of comfort and some form of redress that might lighten their load from this. I do not want to prolong this for them. Too many of them have died. We talked about Mr. Kelly earlier. He is dead. He was semi-precluded from some aspects of the redress scheme anyway and he was aware of that. We will not block this legislation. The Opposition does not have the numbers. The Government Senators have not tabled an amendment. For all their advocacy, the record of the House is that they did not table an amendment. Therefore, this legislation will be passed because we have a Whip system and the Government Senators are all subject to the Whip.
Whatever I do here today will not make a difference, but at least I will have had the opportunity to advocate. I will wrap up by saying that I am mindful today of Mary Raftery of "States of Fear", a wonderful champion. I am mindful too of Christine Buckley, and the great life that she led by example, and yet she forgave in the end. She had a very difficult experience in Goldenbridge.
I want to thank the members of the committee. I particularly want to single out Deputy Cairns, an exceptional, brave and courageous Deputy, Deputy Sherlock of the Labour Party, who championed this; and Deputy Funchion of Sinn Féin, the Cathaoirleach of the committee. I read again early this morning the transcripts of the Final Stages in the Dáil, and by golly they were hard-hitting and challenging, and rightly so. I hope that people in these Houses, through our future roads that we may travel in politics, can collaborate and channel a path to revisit the issues that we have started. So long ago, we were told we were on a hiding to nothing. At least, we are some of the way there.
I will finish by saying that yes, people are going to benefit from redress from this. Yes, I do not want to stop them doing that. They are entitled to that and I hope they get it before any more of them die. However, I will not be supporting the Bill. I will tell the Minister here, without hearing any more, that I cannot support a Bill that abandons people on those key issues that we raised in this regard.
Well said.
I will not support this Bill. I urge people not to support the Bill. On this side of the House, the Government will have no choice. It will be whipped into line, or it will not appear. It simply will not appear and I said to someone this morning: remember who is here and who is not in here, because that tells a story in itself. The simple majority plus one will be in here, but by golly, I put a measure out on this. I will be on their tails. I will be touring up and down this country. I will be articulating strongly where people stood. One thing we have to do is stand up to the plate. We have to deliver if we say we are doing something. We have to honour our commitments. We have to drive our conviction and belief, but to commit to words and do nothing about it does not go down in my book. I will commit myself to continuing, democratically and politically through a parliamentary process, to articulate, highlight and campaign against people who oppose justice for these people.
I will finish on that, and again I say, I want to thank the Minister, because I believe it has been difficult for him. Finally, I want to thank the Minister's staff, who have always been courteous, supportive and forthcoming in any question I have ever asked of them, and that has made my job somewhat easier.
Amendment put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 22.
Tá
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Boylan, Lynn.
- Clonan, Tom.
- Craughwell, Gerard P.
- Gavan, Paul.
- Hoey, Annie.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Mullen, Rónán.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Sherlock, Marie.
- Wall, Mark.
- Warfield, Fintan.
Níl
- Ardagh, Catherine.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, John.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Mark.
- Daly, Paul.
- Davitt, Aidan.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Garvey, Róisín.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- McGahon, John.
- McGreehan, Erin.
- Murphy, Eugene.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Reilly, Pauline.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Victor Boyhan and Michael McDowell; Níl, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Joe O'Reilly.
Pursuant to Standing Order 57A, Senator Rebecca Moynihan has notified the Cathaoirleach that she is on maternity leave from 6th February to 18th August, 2023, and the Whip of the Fine Gael Group has notified the Cathaoirleach that the Fine Gael Group has entered into a voting pairing arrangement with Senator Moynihan for the duration of her maternity leave.
Amendment declared lost.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 2.
Amendments Nos. 2, 4 to 7, inclusive, 12, 13, 20, 21, 25, 26, 48 to 50, inclusive, and 52, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Does the Minister wish to speak on the grouping?
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 6, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“ “concluding year” means—
(a) in respect of a relevant institution specified in column 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 at any reference number, the year specified in column 4 of that Part at that reference number, and
(b) in respect of a relevant institution specified in column 2 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 at any reference number, the year specified in column 3 of that Part at that reference number,
and includes a concluding year inserted by regulations under subsection (1), or amended by regulations under subsection (3), of section 50;”.
I thank the Acting Chair. I signalled on Committee Stage that my officials were examining a complex issue in consultation with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and the Office of the Attorney General, with regard to the county home institutions included in this scheme, and that I intended to bring amendments to the Bill on Report Stage to address this issue. This is an issue that came to the attention of my Department recently, hence the reason for the amendments being brought forward at this stage. The amendments are necessary purely to protect the scheme for its intended recipients, and I circulated a note on this amendment to Senators on Monday.
Before I outline these amendments and speak to each individually as appropriate, first, I reassure Senators and the eligible applicants that these amendments will in no way affect how people should apply, or who will benefit from the scheme. It is in no way designed to narrow the scope of the group of 34,000 former residents for whom this scheme is designed. I want to make that clear at the outset. The amendments are being made to provide clarity now and for the future, and to ensure that the Bill faithfully reflects the policy objective of the scheme, which is to recognise time spent, harsh conditions, emotional abuse and all other forms of mistreatment, stigma and trauma experienced while resident in mother and baby and county home institutions.
Moving on to the issue itself, it is known that women were admitted to county homes in the same circumstances as those who were admitted to mother and baby institutions. The county homes were successors to workhouses, and the conditions in these institutions were extremely poor.
The women who spent time in county homes sometimes experienced even worse conditions than those who were residents in mother and baby institutions. It was the understanding of the interdepartmental group that developed the proposals for the payments scheme that all county homes had closed by the early- to mid-1960s, with many of the locations shifting towards the care of the elderly and becoming nursing homes. The commission's report noted that the practice of admitting unmarried women to county homes ceased in the early 1960s with the number of unmarried women in these homes across the country being in the single digits by 1963.
However, it has come to light that while many county homes did transition to provide services to older people in the 1960s, a number of them were co-located with county or district hospitals which provided medical or surgical services and also mainstream maternity services to women, both married and unmarried. Notably, these mainstream services continued to be provided at these locations for many years and in some cases beyond the term of the commission's investigation, which was 1998.
As Senators know, the scheme is currently construed so that women are eligible for a general payment based on having been admitted to and spending one night in an institution. The Government took this approach as we wanted to acknowledge the particular stigma and trauma experienced by women as a result of being admitted to a mother and baby or county home institution. However, because of this requirement to be resident only for one night, an issue has come to light which if not addressed would have implications for the scheme with the risk of access inadvertently becoming broader than just focusing on those the scheme is intended to focus on, namely, survivors of the institutional experience.
To address this, it has been decided to make amendments to the Bill, which fall into three broad parts. First, I propose to amend Schedule 1 to the Bill to provide greater clarity in relation to the names of the county home institutions. I also propose to amend Schedule 1 to the Bill to provide a concluding year in respect of all institutions under the scheme, including county homes. Finally, I propose to amend the definition of a “relevant person” in section 2 to include a reference to the provision of shelter and maintenance to provide clarity on the purpose and main function of mother and baby and county home institutions.
I will look at each of those elements separately. Schedule 1 to the Bill is being amended to provide greater clarity in relation to the names of the county home institutions. Amendment No. 52 sets out the revised Schedule 1. In order to be eligible for the payment scheme, an applicant must have been resident in one of the listed mother and baby or county home institutions. The issue in question arises in circumstances where county homes and county or district hospitals were co-located on the same site, although in most cases they were separately and distinctly managed. The co-located sites apply to 15 of the 29 county homes which carry eligibility for the payment scheme. In all cases, the county home is within the remit of the scheme but the hospital is not.
I propose to amend Schedule 1 to the Bill by creating two distinct columns. The first column, column 2, refers to the county home institutions and the second column, column 3, gives further information in relation to the other or later known names for those institutions. In some cases, this other known name also pertains to a county or district hospital. This amendment is a first step to ensuring the policy intention of the scheme is clear and protected. However, it will also provide clarity to applicants as in many cases institutions were renamed or given a religious name at a point in time and so an applicant may not recognise the institution by this newer name, depending on when they spent time there. This more detailed Schedule will also address an error that was identified in relation to the Waterford county home. This had previously been listed in the Bill as “St. John's Hospital" in Dungarvan, but it should actually be described as "St. Joseph’s Hospital" in Dungarvan.
Schedule 1 to the Bill is also being amended to provide a concluding year in respect of all institutions, including county homes. This is for the purpose of providing additional clarity pertaining to the timeframes in which these institutions operated as mother and baby and county home institutions. My Department is currently engaged in a detailed piece of work with regard to the institutional records for the scheme in preparation for its opening. This exercise, in conjunction with the work undertaken by the Commission, has allowed the Department to ascertain a concluding year for each institution. The Department is satisfied this represents the last year that women or children were admitted to these institutions for reasons relating to this scheme. While the issue has arisen relating to county home institutions, there are similar implications for the mother and baby home institutions under the scheme, which are included in Schedule 1 to Part 2.
The commission's term of investigation was from 1922 to 1998. As part of its terms of reference, it was given the authority to amend the relevant period in respect of any component part or institution. It was considered appropriate to do so. In some cases, where the commission's report indicates that an institution closed or ceased to operate as a mother and baby home, this year is set as the concluding year in the revised schedule. Some institutions continue to operate beyond the period of investigation, either in a different capacity or operating a model that was vastly different from that of earlier decades. Therefore, in these cases, the concluding year is set as 1998, which was the final year of the commission's investigation.
To support these changes to Schedule 1, under amendment No. 52 there will be a number of necessary consequential amendments. Amendment No. 2 inserts the definition for “concluding year” in respect of the relevant institution into section 2. Amendment No. 4 amends the definition of a “relevant institution” to specify that it is an institution that is named in column 2 of Part 1 or column 2 of Part 2 of Schedule 1.
Senators will see that Part 1 of the revised Schedule 1 contains four columns, with column 2 listing the names of the institutions for the purposes of this scheme, in other words, the county home. Column 3 of Part 1 contains information on other names that the county home may have been known as or referred to as. However, as I just mentioned, this may also pertain to a county or district hospital. Therefore, it is important that the definition of a “relevant institution” makes reference to column 2 only in Part 1 with column 3 intended to provide supporting information.
Part 2 of the revised Schedule will contain three columns with only column 2 referring to the institution names. Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 25 are consequentially technical in nature to sections 18 and 24 and provide for these sections to be amended to make reference to column 2 specifically when referring to institutions in the Schedule. Amendment No. 26 provides that in circumstances where an applicant was admitted to an institution up to and including 31 December of the concluding year, then their eligibility for the scheme will be calculated on the entire period of residence, even if that goes beyond the cut-off year in question. For example, if a person was admitted to an institution on 20 November 1960 and was resident in the institution for a 12-month period and the concluding year for that institution is 1960, the scheme administrator will base their award on the full 12 months they were resident in that institution, even though it will go beyond the concluding year.
The final consequential amendment arising from the revised Schedule 2 relates to section 50 of the Bill and additional institutions. Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 48 to 50, inclusive, all concern this aspect. I will first speak on amendments Nos. 48 to 50, inclusive. This section of the Bill is being renamed to more accurately cover the provisions that will now be contained within it. Amendment No. 48 and the first part of amendment No. 50 refer to where the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, is adding an additional institution, because we have the power to add additional institutions. This is basically saying that if an additional institution is to be added, a concluding year will be added with that new additional institution.
Finally, amendment No. 49 provides for a small change to section 50(1) and the language in the criteria which would be used to establish if an additional institution should be added to the scheme. It replaces the word “maternity” in this subsection with the term “pregnancy related”. This change is being made purely to avoid confusion with where the word “maternity” is used elsewhere in the Bill to describe mainstream maternity services. The final part of amendment No. 50 provides that the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Delivery and Reform, can positively amend the concluding year to a more recent year for existing institutions under the scheme, should evidence come to light that necessitates this change. This means that while we are putting in a concluding year now, if evidence arises that an institution was acting as one of these institutions subsequent to that year, then similarly to the way the Minister can add a new institution, the Minister can also amend that concluding year and can bring more people within the remit of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 amend section 20 of the Bill, which deals with the treatment of further applications of the scheme when an institution is added. These amendments provide that further application can now also be made to the scheme where the Minister, under section 50, amends the concluding year for any of the institutions currently listed in section 1.
Finally, in relation to the amendment to the definition of a "relevant person" in the Bill, amendment No. 5 changes paragraph (b) of the definition, which is the part that pertains to mothers, to now include two parts. The first part, which is currently in the Bill, refers to residents in the institution for reasons relating to pregnancy and the birth and care of the child as a result of that pregnancy.
The second new part relates to being resident in order to be provided with shelter and maintenance. The second part of the definition is being added in order to refer in the Bill to the particular purpose of those institutions, as aligned with their specified purpose in the underlying legislative framework for county homes. It is, therefore, included in order to distinguish between the mother and baby and county institutions and other general medical settings, including hospitals, in terms of the reasons for being admitted which was ultimately because the women in these institutions and circumstances had no alternative and nowhere else to go.
Before I move on to explain this further, I am cognisant of the language we are using and the word "shelter". The word implies a level of support and care and is one that many survivors feel does not align with their experiences in those particular institutions. The reason we are using the term "shelter" is to align with the terms used in the existing legislation that pertained to the county home institutions. In particular, section 54 of the Health Act 1953, for example, provided for institutional assistance, meaning shelter and maintenance in a county home or similar institution, and was the legislative provision governing the maintenance of unmarried mothers and children in the mother and baby and county home institutions.
It is the case that these institutions had a specific function under legislation, distinct from the function of providing medical services which was legislated for separately. That is why amendment No. 5 refers to the term "shelter and maintenance" being a primary purpose for a person's admittance to a relevant institution. It is why the amendment should be read in conjunction with amendment No. 7 which seeks to be clear that the reference to shelter and maintenance in the definition of a relevant person does not include where this is incidental to a person receiving medical, surgery or maternity services.
Finally, amendment No. 6 makes the change to subsection (2) of section 2 of the Bill which outlines what is required for a person to be considered to have been resident in an institution. As mentioned at the outset, in the case of mothers only one night in an institution is required in order to be deemed eligible for the scheme. This amendment is required to clarify that the residents must also be reckonable under section 24(2), in particular the newly inserted section 24(2)(b) covered by amendment No. 26, meaning the start of the period of residence must occur before 21 December of the concluding year for the institution concerned. This outlines this issue and the proposed amendments in this group.
Before we pass over to debate, I want to again make clear that these changes are not about in any way reducing the eligibility for the scheme. Rather, the changes are about clarifying a particular issue that came up in terms of county homes. Once these amendments are passed, the scheme will continue to provide for the 34,000 individuals concerned, as we have discussed previously.
I hear what the Minister is saying, namely that the intention is not to reduce or restrict eligibility in any way shape or form but instead clarify it. However, when I read the Bill I see it differently and have some concerns that it is the opposite. Perhaps that is something we can work out in our conversation.
On the addition of the concluding years, I read the briefing document provided by the Minister, for which I thank him. In the document he states that the Government until recently believed county homes ceased the practice of admitting unmarried women in the early 1960s. The briefing document goes on to say it recently came to the attention of the Department that the understanding that county homes closed by the mid-1960s and did not provide mainstream health services to the general population is not a fully comprehensive depiction of the circumstances.
My understanding is that the inclusion of the concluding year is necessary to distinguish residents of the institution from residents of the hospitals co-located on the same sites. However, I am hesitant to support any amendment which would create cut-off points based on information that has recently changed and is still moving. In the Minister's document, he said there is still new information or understanding emerging about how these institutions operated or when practices ended in these institutions. In light of that fact, how can we decide on a concluding year or cut-off point when we do not have absolute certainty? How can we be certain that no abuse or harmful practices were taking place after the concluding years that we are putting into the Bill?
If we cannot be certain, surely it is better not to include them in the Bill. It is awful to think of survivors who may be wrongly excluded by a concluding year when we are receiving new information. This proposal does not feel solid or clear enough. I understand if some sort of distinction needs to be included in the Bill. The concluding year is too blunt. People will rule themselves out of applying. Others will be refused based on the concluding year. I have heard what the Minister has said about amending the legislation to change the concluding year, but that involves a significant passage of time for the cohort of people covered by the Bill if their applications are refused and the legislation needs to be changed in order to change the concluding year. Is there a better way to do this?
Could it be determined whether an application had merit based on the information a person provides rather than on a concluding year? We would then consider the relevant information as it comes in. If someone is making a case that they were in an institution or co-located space after a concluding year, we would then work with the application based on the information we have received instead of basing the scheme on information that is changing. We do not have complete clarity on how some institutions operated after the cut-off points and years.
Regarding amendments Nos. 5 and 7, I cannot support them. The rationale offered, if understood correctly, is that it is necessary to further narrow the definition of relevant persons in order to distinguish the residents of county homes from the patients of county hospitals, which may have been co-located on the same site as the homes. However, I fear this amendment has implications beyond the distinction the Minister is trying to create between residents of institutions and hospital patients. The further narrowing of the definition of relevant persons conflicts with our proposals for an expanded scheme. Many of our amendments to the Bill attempt to remove the 180-day and 90-day residency requirement for children and mothers who were resident in institutions to qualify for general or work-related payments under the scheme.
We have repeatedly highlighted that some of the most traumatic things that mothers experienced in these homes were childbirth and actively cruel practices such as the denial of pain relief during childbirth. These experiences occurred within a very short period of time after entering a home and have had lifelong consequences for many. This is why it is our belief that any person who spent even a single day in a home should qualify for the general payment and an enhanced medical card under the scheme. My concern is that the new definition of relevant person means that a person would only qualify for the scheme if the primary purpose of their admission to the relevant institution was the provision of shelter and maintenance.
Later on, in the debate on the waiver, we will discuss the meaning of circumstances and whether the word "circumstances" is all-encompassing. We will make arguments that all circumstances are included by the word "circumstance" and that is what we will go back and forth on. However, we are making the complete opposite argument regarding something like this where we are not recognising particular circumstances which may be that of childbirth itself.
Some people may have accessed maternity services and did not go into shelter but experienced forced separation. Some of those women may not have returned home with their children from the maternity service or hospital piece. They may not have made it into shelter, but that does not mean they did not spend several weeks in the hospital after a difficult and painful birth and still did not leave with their children.
Amendment No. 7 clarifies that a person who received shelter incidental to the provision of maternity care would not meet the definition of a relevant person. It is not enough that they entered a home to give birth; they would have to have been sheltered there for a long period additional to the birthing period. We have serious concerns that this new definition would exclude mothers who spent a particularly short time in an institution. The requirement that a person must have been receiving shelter and maintenance from the institution means that, for example, a mother who gave birth in an institution, was separated from her child and left the institution a couple of weeks later would potentially no longer be defined as a relevant person.
Later on, when it comes to a waiver we will say that the waiver prohibits them from speaking about forced separation in terms of that being a circumstance of being in the shelter.
Here, we are saying that under the category of a relevant person, that does not apply because they did not end up in the shelter for a long period but they did experience forced separation. On one hand it is a circumstance and on the other, it removes them from being a relevant person. That is my fear about this amendment. I worry about the fact that, if a mother was there primarily to give birth, she would no longer be defined as a relevant person as she would not meet the criteria of primarily being given shelter and maintenance. I cannot support a new definition that may exclude certain mothers from general payments and creates additional obstacles to the widening of the scheme in the future, which is what we want to achieve. We have argued strongly that every person who spent any amount of time in the institutions, particularly mothers who gave birth in them, must be entitled to both general payments and enhanced medical cards under the scheme. This amended definition would move us further from that goal and I have no choice but to oppose amendments Nos. 5 and 7 for this reason.
On amendment No. 49, maybe the Minister could give some clarity to further explain why "pregnancy related" is a better term to use than "maternity". I do not really understand the motive for that. The Minister referenced it in a line or two in his contribution and indicated that it was to make a distinction between those who were there to use maternity services only and others.
That is correct.
The thing is that some people who experienced trauma, abuses or forced separation may be officially down in the records as only being there to receive maternity services. There is also how these things are recorded within institutions. They may have been sent to those maternity services against their will at the wish of their family. They may have been forced from their children in the weeks of receiving those maternity services. Maybe I am misunderstanding but was there not movement between those who received maternity services and those who were in the county homes on those co-located sites? Did people give birth in the county home only? It would seem like everybody in a county home was officially down as being there for maternity services. Did they actually give birth on the same co-located site but were then moved into a shelter? I am just not sure whether changing the term from maternity to pregnancy-related restricts us in understanding how these co-located sites worked at the time in terms of the movement of women between the maternity-specific services and the county homes. Some probably never made it into the shelter in the county homes but it does not mean that was not the intention for them. They could have been sent there and there could have been a stillbirth. There could have been anything. There could have been a forced separation after that. They may not have gone home with their children but the intention was always under that same guise of unmarried mothers. Just because they received maternity services and did not end up in the shelter does not mean they were not part of the same system and how they were recorded may not be reflective of what they endured while they were there. The women who report not receiving pain relief may have received that aspect in the maternity services piece and not in the county home piece. I understand why we need to make a distinction because of course there will be a lot of people and families who just used the maternity services but that does not mean some of the other women we need to capture did not only use the maternity services. I will have to vote against some of these amendments.
I call Senator Boyhan but we will be suspending in under a minute.
I will be very quick. I just want to say that I too have concerns. Senator Ruane articulated the issue very well. Part 2 of Schedule 1 refers to "St. Kevin’s Institution (initially the Dublin Union), Dublin" and lists the concluding year as 1935. I was born there in 1961. That is where it is wrong for starters. I know at least 30 or 40 people who were born there in the mid-1960s. This institution was a place that was very regularly, under very stressful sets of circumstances, facilitating births and within 24 hours transferring children to State institutions and orphanages in Dublin.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar fionraí ar 2.45 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 3.18 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 2.45 p.m. and resumed at 3.18 p.m.
We resume the debate on the grouping of amendments Nos. 2, 4 to 7, inclusive, 12, 13, 20, 21, 25, 26, 48 to 50, inclusive, and 52. Senator Boyhan is in possession, so I will ask him to resume his contribution on this grouping.
I had made most of it, I think, but I was just flagging with the Minister that he had spoken with regard to his series of amendments, and I was drawing attention to Schedule 1, Part 2. There are three columns there: the reference number, the name of the institution, and the concluding year. I was talking about St. Kevin's Institution, initially the Dublin Union, and the concluding year was 1935. I was also making the point - and I never have a difficulty in telling my age - that I was born there in 1961. That is factually correct. I have also had dealings with more than 40 or 50 people who were born there in the 1960s.
We know about this aspect from the historical context and the registers of a combination of a number of institutions. The Church of Ireland Representative Church Body, RCB, library in Churchtown has extensive records of its institutions because it has gathered many of them and many have been used in research. We know, however, that many people from St. Kevin's were sent out to other institutions in Dublin. We also know that people were only there for a day. We have been told and there are records showing that people entered there in the morning and were told they would have their babies, come hell or high water, by evening. Out they then went. The parents were then shipped back to the country. Many of these were secret birth procedures. There was a maternity facility in the institution, but not in the sense we might understand it. We are talking about the situation back then. This institution was also the Dublin Union and a tuberculosis, TB, hospital. It is now part of the St. James's Hospital complex.
I can understand, therefore, where there might be mix-ups and complexities regarding the different uses for different buildings on the same site. We do know, however, that a substantial number of children were born in the building I referred to. We also know many other children were there as well. For some reason, though, we know that many Anglican children were brought to this particular institution as well. It was not a religious place as such, and perhaps this was the reason. These children then went out to other institutions, some of them living in them up until the age of five and not being baptised. I was not baptised until I was five in St. Mark's Church here in Pearse Street in Dublin. I remember attending my own baptism. I have photographs of it, so it is quite an extraordinary story.
We must look back at the number of children born in this context. We will be able to get a clear picture of the very short stays these children had and where they then went. These children were transferred to mother-and-baby institutions. In some cases, the parents did not consent and the adoptions could not proceed for this reason. If the parents were particularly supported, they fought the case. Many of these children, therefore, grew up in the 1960s and 1970s in care and in limbo. Their parent or parents, because of forced separation, did not consent. The option then was for them to be raised in State institutions.
From the records of the State institutions, we know payments were made in the mid-to-late 1960s. There are extensive records of payments from the State into these institutions. Around the time of the Kennedy report, perhaps 1968 or around then, a significant amount of work was done in registering and getting a handle on all these children in these State places. I think this activity came from the recommendations of the Kennedy report. Suddenly, after that, we can see an extremely large amount of correspondence emanating from the Eastern Health Board, EHB, asking where these children were, what their health records were, including inoculations and whatever else, and why they were in State care. The EHB also wished to know if the parents of these children were contributing financially to their maintenance, and if not, why not. The question was also asked as to why these children were in limbo when their parents were not consenting and the process was being held up. Many children fell into this situation and then went on into State care.
I believe many records exist in this regard. It is arduous work to tease through the information. The Minister gave some reassurance, and I ask him to clarify this aspect, in respect of the possibility of an incorrect categorisation in this regard becoming known and a quick extension being given in such a case. Off the top of my head, I have referred to the only institution I know about. I am familiar as well, though, of course with Miss Carr's in Dublin. These were described as flatlets. Miss Carr's also had a place called No. 5 Northbrook Road, which is a completely different address. I visited both these premises yesterday. They are both still operating and in the business of caring for children today. This point is important.
Bethany House had other subsidiaries as well, so we have to be a little bit careful here. I ask the Minister to flag the case of St. Kevin's institution, if possible, and that this aspect be put on the radar now rather than later. I am not suggesting this should hold up the entire process. I think what the Minister is saying is that he is open to extending the concluding year if he feels it is warranted, justified and based on evidence he and his Department would be satisfied with.
I wish to pose some queries and set out the Sinn Féin stance regarding some of these proposed amendments. We are concerned about amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7 in particular. I must be honest and say it looks like these proposed amendments are designed to restrict people's ability to apply for restitution. I wish to flag to the Minister that it is significant what Senator Boyhan has just said. He has flagged that the date beside St. Kevin's institution is incorrect. This proposed addition to the legislation concerning the concluding year worries me. Senator Ruane put it very well. This information is still being discovered and it is far from clear the State can be certain about these issues.
I spent several years in the Castlepollard institution. I also spoke to somebody else who knows Castlepollard very well this morning, and we are both of the view that the year 1971 is unlikely to be correct as a concluding year. Straightaway, then, we have two errors of fact in this one table. For this reason alone, I urge caution now. I reiterate that it looks to me as if these proposed amendments have been designed to further restrict people's ability to apply for compensation.
I thank the Senators for their contributions. I will try to address the key issues. Turning to the contribution made by Senator Ruane, I take the point regarding new information and the desire for information of this kind to be accurate. I fully accept what she is saying in this regard. Since the information has come to light about the complexity of the arrangements, especially at many of the county homes, and the evolution many of the county homes experienced in terms of the functions they undertook, officials in my Department have undertaken an institution-by-institution analysis of the county homes to examine this issue of the cut-off date. Based on that analysis of the records for these institutions, our officials are satisfied that the concluding year is reasonable and appropriate.
It is clear from the records we have seen that the homes were no longer admitting unmarried mothers and children beyond these dates. Additionally, the information that came to light and prompted this analysis was that these dates are irrelevant. This is why we needed to take the time to look at this issue and to ensure we got a correct concluding date in terms of the amendments being brought forward on this Stage.
We must be clear this legislation and this scheme is for people who were in mother and baby and county home institutions. Any person who was in a mother and baby and county home institution, even for one night, will qualify as they will have been on the register for that particular institution. It is important to say no mother will have to demonstrate being a relevant person. Eligibility will still be established by the records, as has always been the case. If people, therefore, are on the record of a county home, their residency for the purposes of this Bill is proved.
Recognising the point the Senator made, though, I also, on foot of bringing in these amendments, have brought in the amendment to allow for these concluding dates to be changed. I have done this because I recognise that all this new information has come out during this process. This is why it is important that we have put in the ability not just to add a new institution but to change the concluding dates and to bring them to a later period for those institutions listed.
Senator Boyhan spoke to the complexity of the collocated nature of many of these institutions when he spoke about St. Kevin's. Children were being born there and sent out after just one day. They were gone from the institution after just one day. In that way, St. Kevin's was not acting as a county home anymore. It was acting, as the Senator said, as a maternity facility. I do not think we want to call it a maternity hospital because that is something very different. It was a maternity facility and it was not acting as a county home. From looking at the report of the commission, we know what was happening in the county homes. These were some of the grimmest places in terms of their treatment of women and mothers at birth and in respect of these women and mothers having to work, and undertake a significant amount of work, in these institutions as well.
I certainly take on board the concern raised by the Senator. He has put it on my radar. In the case of the institution mentioned, or, indeed, any other institution, if it becomes clear it was operating as a mother and baby or a county home institution at a time after the concluding date set out in the Schedule, I am open to using the powers available under the legislation to make this change.
We are recognising in this legislation and seeking to provide a payment for those who went through the particular experience of time spent in a mother and baby home or county home institution. Through all of this we recognise that there were other types of institutions in the Irish State but this legislation is designed to recognise time spent in mother and baby and county home institutions and the trauma and stigma experienced by people who were admitted to them because they were pregnant and unmarried at that particular time.
In response to Senator Ruane regarding the definition of "relevant person", I made the point earlier that an applicant's entitlement under the scheme will still be verified primarily by reference to the institutional records. Therefore, an applicant is not going to have to worry about proving that he or she meets both parts of the amended definition, as long as his or her name is in the particular institutional records. As we know, the non-adversarial approach that is taken to the scheme and the simplicity therein has allowed the Bill to remain relatively silent on the reasons women found themselves in these institutions. We have not done a big list of why women were in a particular institution; presence in that institution was the key element. The definition of a "relevant person" only made a distinction between a person who was a resident in an institution as a child or as a pregnant woman.
The issue that has presented in relation to county homes, particularly in circumstances where they were co-located with a hospital, means that we have to provide some greater degree of clarity and to highlight the further function of the county home institutions in the scheme, to be more comprehensive and speak to why a woman found herself being admitted to a mother and baby home or particularly a county home institution. Ultimately, the reason for that admittance was that she was pregnant and basically had no alternative option. Often, as we know, these women were abandoned by their families. As I said previously, it is clear from the commission report that county homes were particularly odious places. The women who spent time in county homes endured awful conditions and circumstances and we want to recognise this. We also want to recognise that there is a difference between having given birth in a hospital that is on the site of a county home and having spent time in a particular county home. That is the distinction that we are trying to recognise here. The intention behind the scheme was always to recognise those who spent time within a county home or mother and baby home. I hope I have been able to provide some level of clarity but am happy to provide further clarification if necessary.
I will be brief. I really only want to flag this and am not expecting the Minister to come back with another response. There are a number of issues here. A lot of these people were not ever abandoned by their families. They were abandoned by the State. It is too simplistic to say that.
In relation to the county homes, a lot of these women were held back. They went in as young girls of 16 or 17 and were actually impregnated in county homes. Let us call a spade a spade. I can provide documentation which shows that they were then sent from these county homes to St. Kevin's Institution or the Dublin Union as it was known then, which is now St. James's Hospital. They were brought back in again and their babies were taken away from them forcibly. There was terrible shame, guilt and a whole load of other things going on. This is why this issue is so complex. There are people who were put into care, grew up in care and ended up becoming pregnant in those institutions. This was quite common. Ms Mary Raftery touched on how common it was in her "States of Fear" documentary. The women were brought back in and brought back out and we see a lot of that in Bessborough in particular.
Furthermore, they were not all unmarried mothers. Remember there was no divorce in Ireland in the 1960s so people were forced to stay together. They were husband and wife but many of the women were brutalised within those marriages. However, that was their marriage and their Church was telling them that they had to stick together, through thick and thin. They continued to be raped within marriage and continued to have ten, 11 and 12 children. Then the State stepped in, in many cases, because it considered the parents to be unfit. The fathers were gamblers, alcoholics and so on and the State thought it was doing good by taking the children into care against their parents' wishes, even though the parents had constitutional rights. It is so complex. We cannot generalise and say they were unmarried mothers. A lot of people were forced to be in a union. They were married and that was it. That is what the Church and the State said. They were in and out of St. Kevin's and that makes it all a bit more complex.
I just wanted to flag this and do not necessarily want the Minister to respond again on it. The Minister appreciates the complexity and understands why it is so difficult to box this off in a legislative way. It is clear that so many people were in and out of care. In some cases, not once but twice or three times, they had children who were then taken away from them. They were labourers and work staff within the institutional structure.
In relation to the co-location issue, what I am struggling with is the fact that we are talking about hospitals and county homes but they were operating under the same management. Did they not have the same structures and umbrella? Mother and baby homes were stand-alone institutions but what were the structures in county homes? There were two separate institutions operating within the one site. If I was a pregnant woman would I go to the hospital for maternity services and then be transferred to the county home for whatever my particular circumstances were? Maybe when I was in the maternity services part, I received particular treatment. If they were both working under the same ethos, then brutality would not just begin when the woman stepped into the county home. There had to be collusion because there was communication and facilitation between the two entities. There is something else going on when we are talking about co-location sites because there is communication between the two facilities. Let us say I am in the hospital and am refused medical care or my child is taken from my arms and never brought back to me. Then I am put into the county home part but the other brutality and cruelty pieces happened in the maternity services part. Then when I later sign a waiver, I am signing that waiver based on the circumstances of the county home. If we are going to separate the two facilities for the purposes of this legislation, how can we then not separate the two facilities for the purposes of the waiver? We are saying that the maternity services are separate and do not make us a "relevant person". When we move into the county home, that applies and allows us to become a "relevant person". However, in the maternity services other things may have happened like racial stuff, which is not recognised. We are separating them here but are putting them back together for the purposes of the waiver. This does not make sense to me and makes the legislation incoherent. It is unique because the others may be more specific when we are looking at covering circumstances by waivers because they are just stand-alone institutions but a maternity services site in a co-location spot is still part of the one system. That would have to be recognised in the context of a "relevant person". If not, then under a waiver whatever happened to a person in the maternity services part is not covered by the waiver because it is not covered by "relevant person".
I have huge sympathy for the case Senator Ruane makes. It is a very coherent argument, to be fair. We have evidence regarding people in that nursing or that maternity care aspect, that a single woman giving birth beside a married woman giving birth received very different treatment. The former was treated in an abominably different way. Empathy and respect was shown to the married woman but there was none shown to the single woman. There was cruelty, including the withholding of pain medication. In fact, there was deliberate infliction of harm. I do not see why we cannot accept the affidavits.
In other areas, we are inviting an affidavit to cover periods of time where, for example, there are no records. I do not see why the same cannot be done in this context and we cannot accept affidavits to cover what happened in those nursing scenarios. The woman was a single woman. If we were to do a box-ticking exercise, many of the same boxes would be ticked as in the cases of those who fall within the definition of normal "relevant person". I do not see why the Minister cannot accept this measure's inclusion - we would be careful in the information that went out when people were invited to apply to the scheme - and why we cannot cover those situations, knowing them to be unique. There will be records and other elements will match up where the women with these experiences are concerned, allowing them to fall within the remit. We are not talking about an incalculable number of people and there will be circumstances that concur. This matter could be addressed without even tabling an amendment to the Minister's amendments.
I have a second point to make about the term "concluding year". I accept the issue raised by Senator Boyhan and I hear what the Minister is saying. Having flexibility in this regard is important, but the term "concluding year" is a little unfortunate. Bearing in mind how the Minister explained it, I ask that, in the information we put out, we are clear that this is a residency occurring or commencing in the year. If someone entered an institution in December 1963, that person would still be within that year for whatever the person's length of residency was. By wording this provision differently, we could ensure that it was not as finite and abrupt as it appears to be. This is a question of nuance and semantics more than anything else, but changing the wording can ensure that we do not have the cut-off point that Senator Ruane referred to, with people believing they will not be covered. People assume that "concluding" means when they moved out. That is how I would read it. We can be careful in our terminology and instead say something like "residency occurring in or commencing up to the conclusion of" such and such a date, for example, 31 December 1963. In this way, we could ensure that there was not an abrupt end.
I take on board the Senator's point about "concluding year". In terms of the material supporting the outline of the scheme, we will bear that in mind.
Regarding Senator Boyhan's comments, this scheme has at no point defined itself as being directed towards unmarried women. We were always clear about that. At no point has that been-----
I was using that term ironically.
It is fair to say that the vast majority were, but not everyone did. That was the point Senator Boyhan made. The scheme recognises his point and consciously never defines the mothers as relevant persons based on their marital status. This is something we did deliberately.
I abhor the term "unmarried mother". I used "single" to try to be a little more delicate and respectful. I accept the Minister's point.
It was never a question of marital status, as we recognise that there were some married women who spent time in these institutions.
Senator Ruane is aware that I am introducing an amendment on the waiver, which will remove some of the ambiguity that she and others raised about the waiver's application. I hope she welcomes that amendment.
Regarding the nature of these institutions, I will try to explain the matter as I saw it.
May I interrupt? There is a group in the Gallery who will be leaving us in two seconds. I welcome the group from Knockavilla community council in County Tipperary. In particular, I welcome Councillor Declan Burgess, who is a fine public representative and doing a great deal of good work.
The mechanism to prove residence continues to be the records of the county home. If a woman was admitted to the county home, she spent a period of time there and, when she went into labour, she moved to its maternity wing or separate maternity building, her residence in the county home is still based on the record of being in the county home. We are trying to distinguish where a woman came to the hospital and used it solely on the basis of its maternity services. I have to recognise that some of those women could have been single women. Many will have been married. They were using the location on the basis of its maternity services. This legislation is not designed to recognise that. Rather, it is designed to recognise people who spent time within the county home system. If someone left the county home, went to the maternity hospital, gave birth there and returned to the county home, it is still recognised within that person's time period. I hope I have given the Deputy some degree of clarity.
I am not sure it has because scenarios keep arising in my mind. We are recognising that the hospital or the maternity wing within the hospital and the county home were one and the same thing in a sense and that they cannot be separated. If someone's time in the maternity services is an extension of her time in the county home, it must be recognised in the other direction as well where someone did not go into the county home first and only attended the maternity services. Maybe her family kept her at home until the point of delivery and then brought her to the maternity services, making those services the first space in question, with a decision then made that the family could not take the child home with them because they did not have space for it. Or maybe she concealed the fact that she was pregnant right up until the last moment and she ended up in these maternity services. Does it not go in the other direction then?
Does the Minister know what I mean? When someone arrived in the maternity services, I imagine she would not automatically have been a resident of the county home first and, by extension, the maternity services. If we are saying that it flows in that direction, then we are saying that all circumstances were the same, but that is not the case. Someone could have been in the maternity services first, a situation occurred, and then she alone went back to the county home for a time, whatever that might have been. Are we saying that what happened in the maternity services in the other direction of flow was part of the abuse? We are saying it is when it flows one way, but are we saying the same about the reverse flow? Does the Minister know what I mean? If we are going to connect them so tightly in one direction, it means that we are connecting them as a whole and that what someone experienced in the county home was effectively what she experienced in the hospital and vice versa. We are saying that they are an extension of each other when it comes to comparing and considering circumstances and time. It is clearer in some places where the homes were just one institution, but there has to be something different to address co-located sites. In reality, all they were was separate buildings, but the abuse and institutionalisation may have been the same regardless of what buildings people were in.
In that circumstance, Senator Seery Kearney's point about the use of the affidavit would be valuable in terms of providing additional information where an applicant felt that the cold records did not provide the full context. There would be the opportunity to provide an affidavit to give that additional context to the chief deciding officer in making a determination of eligibility under the scheme.
In teasing out the affidavit piece, later on we will get to how long it takes for the system to respond to applications so we add in another layer. No real timeframe went into the legislation in terms of when people can expect to hear back. Then we add in another step that requires an affidavit. Someone applies, they say that they are registered with maternity services and not with the county home because their journey began with the maternity services so the records are saying that they received maternity services. Where then does the burden of proof lie? For example, a person swears in the affidavit that they were in the maternity services but they were refused some services or their child was taken away from them. They received all the same conditions as if they had been in the county home, right next door in the same facility. Is the affidavit enough to prove that a person received maternity services but in the scheme of the hospital and what was going on in that relationship, the person actually received the same treatment that they would have whether they laid their head on the pillow in the county home in the same facility? Is an affidavit alone enough or are people going to have to prove this? How will that work? I understand that for other places the records alone are enough but I think there is potential for the records to be quite skewed in some places. Were they offering two different administrative spaces? Was it one administration? If a person arrived at one were they registered as arriving in maternity care and was that registration swapped over that a person was shifted somewhere else? We risk unintentionally making it really difficult for some people in those co-located sites unless we fully understand how they operated.
If a person's internment began with the maternity home it would be reasonable that the date is not the date the person entered into the county home but the date they entered into the maternity home and maternity service aspect. That may be where the affidavit is really important. We are not talking about a six month period but we would need permission for an affidavit to cover the extended period so that there is an earlier commencement date than the date that perhaps the county home record will show.
Regarding the Senator's initial point about timelines, we know from the history that this institutional relationship was often complex. There will be times when there will have to be some back and forth between an applicant and a chief deciding officer. We have designed the scheme to make it as simple as possible. In the significant majority of cases the scheme will deliver that simplicity and do so as quickly as possible. However, I cannot say that for every circumstance. That is why we did not just rely on the records. We have allowed for the affidavit element as well.
I cannot speak to how the chief deciding officer ultimately makes a determination. That determination can be appealed to the independent appeals officer. On a point of law, that can be appealed to the High Court. I just cannot make a broad statement in terms of how they will be decided ultimately.
Some of these locations have a joint register for the county home and the maternity hospital. In that situation we will have to look at it as the register being for the county home. It is also important to recognise that this legislation is designed for people who were in mother and baby homes and county homes. We know mothers experienced trauma in other institutional settings in Ireland in decades past. This legislation cannot encompass every single setting. It is designed around the mother and baby home and county home institutions. That is what we are seeking to make provision for. It is that element of clarity for these co-located sites, that people who were there and were part of the mother and baby home and county home system are eligible.
In that case I will come back to the co-located sites. We have the mother and baby home aspect. We are saying that the legislation only recognises the mother and baby home aspect. It is based on a person's residency records and not in relation to the hospital that is on that site. Again I go back to the fact that what a person experienced on the hospital site does not have anything to do with what the person experienced in the mother and baby home on the same co-located sites. That reaches later into the waiver position even with the amendment, that we cannot get people to sign a waiver that they cannot talk about something that happened to them in the maternity hospital aspect of it, if we are not going to recognise that maternity hospital aspect of it in relation to the legislation. The legislation recognises what happened within the mother and baby institution but something else happened in the hospital and they are separate for the purposes of the legislation so they have to be separate for the purpose of the waiver later on.
We are trying to separate out the women who gave birth in maternity facilities and were there solely for the purpose of the use of those maternity facilities. There were other women who gave birth in maternity facilities who were there because they had been admitted into a county home. We are saying that women in the latter category are entitled to be eligible under the scheme. The scheme is designed for them, women who used a facility for giving birth that happened to be on the same site as a mother and baby home are not within the ambit of this scheme. I would understand that a woman who entered a county home and then perhaps went to a different building and gave birth, the legislation contemplates that entire experience was part of her experience within a mother and baby institution.
Then we are legislating for experience and we are making them relational. We have situations and then we have circumstances. Circumstances are many within the whole of a situation. What we are then saying is that this legislation is not about mother and baby homes or county homes but rather about situations. That situation is as long as a piece of string. In one sense, we are trying to locate it in a space and time within a building and a facility and the conditions of a county home. Then we are saying that it is anything in relation to that. That is a very wide definition. What happened before that? Is the fact that maybe a person's parents were poor now something that cannot be talked about because that is part of the circumstance that led the person there? Circumstances are reaching out all over the place. We have to be able to name things. Within the Bill we do not recognise those other things that happened in the maternity hospital piece. We are saying that by virtue of the fact that a person was going into the county home they were then brought over to the maternity services and they are all part of the one situation. Then we are regulating for a situation and we are saying that everybody's physical and psychological experiences stemmed from that, from one circumstance to another; well then it does not really make sense anymore. There are reasons a person may end up in a mother and baby home. It could be that the person got pregnant when they were 15. Is that person now not allowed to talk about being pregnant at age 15 because that is part of the situation, part of the circumstances? We are saying that we cannot talk about the circumstances that led to the trauma. Perhaps there was racist abuse.
The circumstances that would be covered in a waiver is that we did not receive pain medication or free care under the mental health services, because they are all part of the same circumstance. That does not leave anyone with anything, because the circumstances are bigger than we are recognising in the legislation. If we are saying we are legislating for people who spent time in the county home, were boarded in the county home, we cannot say by extension that their experience in another building with another facility on the same site is different. We are saying that is not the county home. If you go to the maternity hospital and spend four weeks there because you had a really bad labour, you never make it to the county home. However, you experience exactly what those in the county home have experienced, without ever going there. We are not recognising that because the records show you were never in the county home. We are saying we do not recognise any of the circumstances that happened, even if they were the same apart from where you lay your head at night, or had to work in the morning. We are saying we do not recognise that within the legislation. Why can we recognise everything else that has happened to the other women there, because we are saying that is not the county home? If you experience a refusal of medical care or anything like that in the hospital, it cannot just be attached to your experience because we are not attaching everyone else's experience to that? Does the Minister know what I mean? I am talking about your circumstances and situation in place and space. You are in the mother and baby home, and experience whatever happens under that roof. If the Minister wants to make an argument for that waiver, that is okay. We can go back and forth on that. I am not saying it is okay, I do not believe in waivers, but I am saying he can tease that out. We cannot then say that waiver applies to a facility where other things happened, but which facility is not going to be recognised unless someone spent at least one night in this other place. We cannot say we recognise the other facility maternity services, but we do not recognise them for this purpose. We either recognise them as part of the situation, or we do not, if that makes sense.
I thank the Senator. I will make one small point. She mentioned a number of times that you cannot talk about X or Y.
You cannot take a case.
Yes. For the record, there is no gagging order attached to this waiver. However, I take the Senator's point. County homes were added to the commission's remit even though the vast majority closed much earlier than mother and baby homes. In many ways they were seen as a successor to county homes. The reason county homes were in the original investigation, and payments sought is because of the particularly bad conditions that existed in those institutions. This legislation seeks to recognise that. This legislation is also cognisant of the fact that county homes changed and evolved. Some of the successors of county homes still exist and are providing services in Irish society. Some of them are still providing maternity services. As the legislation was previously designed, people who had availed of mainstream maternity services, irrespective of their marital situation could potentially access the scheme. All of us understand, whether one agrees with this scheme or not, that the basis for it was for people who had institutional experience of county and mother and baby institutions. We are seeking to make that distinction in terms of the amendments coming forward. I accept the Senator has a particular concern as regards the waiver and its breadth. I think the amendment I am bringing forward provides an opportunity. I know it does not go as far as the Senator wants, but it will maybe give a greater degree of clarity on that point.
We could probably go back and forth, so we are probably best off to stop there.
I want to clarify what I think I am hearing from the Minister, which is that we are creating a redress scheme that responds to a multitude of things. In particular, the stigma that arises from an Irish society that sent women into a mother and baby institution, be it in some guises and instances that was a county home. In others it was clearly a mother and baby home. The labelling is different, but the experience of that stigma, prejudice and everything else was the same. There will be women who went into a maternity service and then went into the county home afterwards, who will come within the remit and the definition here. There may also be other women who experienced the stigma. They went in to the maternity service. Their child was removed from them and they went home. They will not come within this. Is that what we are saying? I think we can backdate. We can overcome the issues of someone going into the maternity service first and then into the county home. We can cover this commencement date. We can deal with all of that in the backwards and forwards. However, there will be that group of women who experience that societal stigma. They had a child, were not allowed to nurture their own child and were separated from it because of Irish society, prejudice and the times they lived in. They will not come within this scheme. Is that where we are at cut off? I can argue the waiver and will probably be on the same page as the Minister later on with a lot of things. If I am in that category and I do not come under the scheme I will not be signing the waiver, and I will be entitled to do certain things. That is a row for another day, as to the Statute of Limitations and all of that. We have that situation.
What has been captured concisely by the Senator is exactly how I am struggling to separate the county home from the maternity services. Even though other people may have received adequate care, I do not think they can be separated. If a certain administration or facility has agreed to allow a county home within its site, well then it is the county home. You may have been on a ward, and experienced the stigma and the lack of pain medication. Your child was taken from you, but maybe your family decided to take you home and you did not have to sleep in the county home bit. The abuses were still the same, apart from you not going into the county home part. It was all on the same site, even though they were co-located. I do not think in the co-location sites it is fair to uncouple them. At some stage they were agreeing to allow that happen. I could be in the same hospital or on the same wing as another woman in a better position, who is married or has a partner. We are experiencing something very different, as Senator Seery Kearney mentioned earlier. I would still be experiencing the institutional abuses. I would just be experiencing them in another building, but they are still on the same grounds. That is where this fails to capture that. It is unique to the other situations. We cannot let those maternity services off because they were part of it. It was just a different building. They were still carrying out the institutional abuses. To separate them and say that you had to spend even one night in the county home to access this, is denying that those maternity services were part of the county home. However, we are still willing to recognise them as part of the county home in the waiver. That is what I am saying. We are not willing to recognise them as part of it when we are considering who is eligible for redress.
I think Senator Seery Kearney has given a fair estimation of what this scheme does.
The Government has never claimed that this scheme provides an answer to every single instance of the mistreatment of pregnant women in our country. It is designed around mother and baby and county home institutions.
On Senator Ruane's point, I do not agree that because a county home was on a site, and somebody obtained maternity services in a maternity unit or maternity hospital on that site, that necessarily brings them together. From my understanding of practice, I do not think that recognises the same experience this scheme is trying to provide for.
I will make one last plea. I have family; my mother is from County Mayo. The worst possible thing that could have happened to my grandmother was that she would be sent to the county home. I am with Senator Ruane all the way on the issue of being on the same site. Once a woman was within those premises, she was a lesser human being in the manner of her treatment. We can include these women within what we have in legislation. I would be very taken aback if we did not include these women, and there would be yet another group which would be disappointed and let down.
I will finish on this.
That is fine. It is what we are here for.
I hear the Minister saying that the mere fact of being in the maternity services - I am paraphrasing so correct me if needs be - is not recognition that a woman was in the county home, unless she was in the county home. I am saying the recognition happens later on. Later on, we are saying that the circumstance of being in the county home, and a woman may have happened to be transferred there to have a baby, is considered as part of the experience. We are saying it is the same facility because they looked after each other in terms of which one provided what service. They were one and the same thing.
And there were interchangeable staff.
Yes, exactly.
If a woman went to the Mayo county home, she will be included in this scheme. If a woman gave birth in a hospital located on the same site at any time subsequent to that, and I do not know the geography there, this scheme recognises that in many of these places, a separate maternity service was created, set up, and often availed of by the general public. It is recognising that is not the experience for which this particular scheme was designed. It was designed for those who, as Senator Seery Kearney described, were given what was almost a sentence to go to the county home with all that entailed.
Before I come back in for another round, I will take this opportunity to welcome Councillor Brian Fitzgerald, a former Deputy, with his wife Noeleen. I extend a special welcome to their granddaughter, Andrea. They are here with Senator Keogan. I hope they enjoy their visit.
Did you ever hear the question, "What is a university?". You then point at the university and ask whether it is the university. There are different schools within it, and different this and that. It feels like that in respect of this matter. What is the mother and baby home? What is the county home? I am struggling with the fact there will be women who may not have slept in a county home but went in there and were possibly treated by the same nurse and doctor, gave birth the day before in a beautifully empowering way within a family that did not need the intervention that came later, went home with her child that week and everything was fine. I understand we need to find a way for such women not to be captured in the provisions of the Bill. I cannot imagine them applying for it because they will not see themselves in it. They would not opt into something like that anyway.
To shrink it down, let us pretend it was just a ward. On one day, at one hour, that ward was servicing the county home, or women coming in whose children were given up for adoption against their will but who did not go into the county home. That same staff treated the woman who had a secure home and place and was just there for maternity services. The staff treated that woman with respect, and with whatever she received, and she went home. However, that same staff also treated a different woman whose child was going to be taken from her, to whom they refused medical care as regards pain relief, or any type of social supports or respect. They did not send her to the county home because her family agreed to take her home, but she still had all the same traumas and abuses, apart from the time in the county home. At one minute that maternity service is just a maternity service but we are saying that an hour later, when it was a different woman, it was not. Somebody coming in to take a child away was facilitated. People have said that they refused to sign forms but their babies were taken anyway. That could have all happened on the maternity ward in the maternity service.
The whole matter of mother and baby institutions was not only about the institutions but the separation of family, the forced taking of children, the refusal of maternity care, the refusal of respect due to marital status, and all these different things. If that was facilitated on the same co-located site, that maternity service cannot be separated from the county home. It was part of the county home, just as the Seanad office cannot be separated from the Dáil office. They are relational and attached to each other. Women who spent time in those maternity services, located on the same places as those county homes who lost their children and who experienced refusal of medical care for all those different stigmas and institutions, should be able to come under this scheme. Ultimately, one is called a county home and one is called a maternity service, but they were both doing the same thing to some of those women on those co-located sites, apart from where their beds were located that night.
I am not sure if I have anything more constructive to say at this point.
I will speak to these new amendments tabled by the Minister. I had to step out for a minute to meet three families who are here for this legislation. I reiterate there is now uncertainty. Senator Gavan talked about the issues around Castlepollard. This relates to Schedule 1, Part 2 and the three sections concerning reference number, name of institution and concluding year. There is now a query around the Westmeath home in Castlepollard. I also query St. Kevin's institution, which was initially the Dublin Union, as I said, which is clearly way outside the provision in the Bill as it dates from 1935. All the complexities of that co-located hospital maternity unit have been outlined.
However, as I said, we now know factually that many of the people who came from these institutions and county homes were brought there, had a baby, and 24 hours later were brought back to the institutions. We also know that the children of parents who were married were in these institutions, for whom the State made orders that those parents were not allowed to have their children back. We also know that children from there were sent to mother and baby homes in Monkstown, Dún Laoghaire and Blackrock, and two such homes in Navan. That is all there and can be validated. The point is the parents were married. They were not unmarried mothers. Some of them chose to stay together, some of them grew apart but could not separate for economic reasons. In many cases, the State contested these situations. The archive records of the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which was run in our name and had a mandate, a job and was given State aid, indicate it too made written reports suggesting that the separation of children was in their best interests, given the time and different sets of circumstances we know nothing of.
Given the doubt around this, is it not better to leave this section out, or certainly the reference to the concluding years? I am now somewhat concerned. I also mentioned Miss Carr's Flatlets as another relevant place. There is still another property, 5 Leeson Park, on the same road as Miss Carr's Flatlets. Leeson Park is not mentioned in the Bill but I know it to be there. I visited both those locations yesterday to validate their existence. They are still in existence and are still operating. Given there are now a few queries around it, we have to operate on the cautionary principle and say we are not 100% sure on them.
As I referenced earlier, the Minister said that if there were changes, we could bring them in and I think we could bring them in pretty rapidly. I am not sure about this. Why change it? The Minister did not initially propose this. He did not flag this in the Dáil when discussing the amendments at that stage. I acknowledge he has taken on board other issues and other information may have come to light or come to his attention. There is just that bit of uncertainty now which makes me feel there may be a bit more exploring to be done here in regard to these issues.
I do not accept that there is a query over the years that are being used in the concluding year. We have undertaken significant work in terms of ascertaining what that is. However, recognising that this is an important question, we have also built into it, as one of the amendments that is part of this suite of amendments, a provision whereby it will be done by secondary legislation. Therefore, it does not require primary legislation and the concluding year can be amended by statutory instrument.
We have made this change to address an issue we saw with the particular situation of the county homes but we have also put in a contingency for a situation where there was an issue with one of those concluding years. I have certainly stated that if evidence is presented of a serious question over one of those concluding years, the provision that we are looking to put into this Bill, which allows that concluding year to be changed by statutory instrument, will be used.
The Minister is saying he does not accept the concluding year of 1935 for St. Kevin's Institution. On what basis? I am telling the Minister it is not correct.
It is in terms of its use as a county home.
Its use was as a place where women were incarcerated and gave birth, and where their children were taken away from them. Some of these women came from county homes and institutions. I do not want to be more explicit than that. Their children were taken from them and shipped out to these institutions, and they stayed in these institutions for up to 15, 16 or 17 years.
These are facts. The Minister's advisers have let him down badly if he believes that is the case. I do not know how he could believe the concluding year was 1935. We can produce records. I was born in St. Kevin's in 1961. I know people who were born there in 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965. I know of one institution that received up to 70 people from St. Kevin’s Institution. We have more work to do on this. I pointed out two or three institutions and we heard Senator Gavan talk about the one in Westmeath.
I cannot quite get the rationale of why this is being introduced at this stage. I will only say “perceived” because I do not know enough about it, but it has been perceived as if this is in some way closing the thing down or narrowing the focus. I would definitely ask the Minister to follow up on St. Kevin's. I will undertake to engage with a number of people tomorrow who have hard facts on it. However, there is no question that it did not cease to have women held there against their will to give birth to children - these were married people in the State - and, then, for their children to be taken from them with the knowledge of the authorities and transferred out to institutions, in many cases for many years. Their legal parents could not access them. We know that, subsequently, some of these parents turned up and facilitated the baptism of their children. Moreover, they held the same name as both of their parents because they were married, and they had their name but they stayed in care.
We know some of these families have already benefited from previous redress so they would be precluded from redress anyway. Some of these were families of five, six and seven children from one set of parents who were legally married. Of course, as I said earlier and as the Minister knows well, we had no divorce or legal separation at that point. There is no question of the connection between the name, the baptismal certificates and these people. Some of the parents are still alive today. Some of these people are in their 50s, 60s and 70s. They are alive to tell the story. There is a lot of documentation on where they were refused access, where the Garda was called and where the children were told their father was not a fit man to have access to them or to take them out. There was no such thing as supervision.
It is complex and while I appreciate that everyone here knows that, we are definitely wrong in regard to St. Kevin's.
Amendment put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 12.
Tá
- Ardagh, Catherine.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Casey, Pat.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Conway, Martin.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Paul.
- Davitt, Aidan.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Garvey, Róisín.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- McGahon, John.
- McGreehan, Erin.
- O'Loughlin, Fiona.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
Níl
- Black, Frances.
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Boylan, Lynn.
- Clonan, Tom.
- Craughwell, Gerard P.
- Gavan, Paul.
- Hoey, Annie.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Sherlock, Marie.
- Wall, Mark.
- Warfield, Fintan.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Joe O'Reilly; Níl, Senators Victor Boyhan and Annie Hoey.
Pursuant to Standing Order 57A, Senator Rebecca Moynihan has notified the Cathaoirleach that she is on maternity leave from 6th February to 18th August, 2023, and Senator Emer Currie has notified the Cathaoirleach that she has entered into a voting pairing arrangement with Senator Moynihan for the duration of her maternity leave; accordingly neither Senator has voted in this division.
Amendment declared carried.
Bill reported with amendment.
Amendments Nos. 3, 8, 9, 10, 28, 29, 40, 47, 54 and 55 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 6, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
“ “Office of the Chief Deciding Officer” has the meaning assigned to it by section 7;”.
The amendments in this grouping are all technical amendments to the Bill. Amendment No. 3 provides for a definition of the office of the chief deciding officer in section 2 of the Bill.
Amendment No. 9 allows for the Short Title “Office of the Chief Deciding Officer” to be used throughout the Bill rather than the longer title for this office set out in section 7.
Amendment No. 40 corrects an error in section 48 so that the staff are appropriately referred to as being "staff of the office of the chief deciding officer" rather than "staff of the chief deciding officer".
Amendments Nos. 8, 10, 28, 29 and 47 all update the reference to the former Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to take account of its change in name earlier this year to the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform.
Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 are brought forward to correct an oversight in the titles of the table in Schedule 2. The first column is now expanded for clarity in the same way as the remaining columns in the table.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 7, lines 11 and 12, to delete “Schedule 1” and substitute “column 2 of Part 1, or column 2 of Part 2, of Schedule 1”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 11.
Tá
- Ardagh, Catherine.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Casey, Pat.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Conway, Martin.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Paul.
- Davitt, Aidan.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Garvey, Róisín.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- McGahon, John.
- McGreehan, Erin.
- O'Loughlin, Fiona.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
- Ward, Barry.
Níl
- Black, Frances.
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Boylan, Lynn.
- Clonan, Tom.
- Craughwell, Gerard P.
- Gavan, Paul.
- Hoey, Annie.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Wall, Mark.
- Warfield, Fintan.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Joe O'Reilly; Níl, Senators Victor Boyhan and Lynn Boylan.
Pursuant to Standing Order 57A, Senator Rebecca Moynihan has notified the Cathaoirleach that she is on maternity leave from 6th February to 18th August, 2023, and the Whip of the Fine Gael Group has notified the Cathaoirleach that the Fine Gael Group has entered into a voting pairing arrangement with Senator Moynihan for the duration of her maternity leave.
Amendment declared carried.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 7, to delete lines 13 to 18 and substitute the following:
“ “relevant person” means a person who is either or both of the following:
(a) a person who, while the person was a child, was resident in a relevant institution other than in circumstances referred to in paragraph (b);
(b) a person who, while the person was a child or while the person was an adult, or both, was resident in a relevant institution—
(i) for reasons relating to the person’s pregnancy, or the birth or care of the child born as a result of the pregnancy, and
(ii) where the primary purpose of the person’s admission to the relevant institution was the provision to the person of shelter and maintenance;”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 10.
Tá
- Ardagh, Catherine.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Casey, Pat.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Cummins, John.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Paul.
- Davitt, Aidan.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Garvey, Róisín.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- McGahon, John.
- McGreehan, Erin.
- O'Loughlin, Fiona.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
- Ward, Barry.
Níl
- Black, Frances.
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Boylan, Lynn.
- Clonan, Tom.
- Gavan, Paul.
- Hoey, Annie.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Wall, Mark.
- Warfield, Fintan.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Joe O'Reilly; Níl, Senators Lynn Ruane and Frances Black.
Pursuant to Standing Order 57A, Senator Rebecca Moynihan has notified the Cathaoirleach that she is on maternity leave from 6th February to 18th August, 2023, and the Whip of the Fine Gael Group has notified the Cathaoirleach that the Fine Gael Group has entered into a voting pairing arrangement with Senator Moynihan for the duration of her maternity leave.
Amendment declared carried.
At this juncture I pay tribute to Senator Carrigy and his committee today on their very fine report. I congratulate him and his committee. They have done a great piece of work. Déanaim comhghairdeas leo.
Government amendment No. 6:
In page 7, line 25, after “Act,” to insert “and without prejudice to section 24(2),”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 7, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:
“(3)A reference in paragraph (b) of the definition of “relevant person” in subsection (1) to the provision of shelter and maintenance to a person does not include a reference to the provision of such shelter and maintenance as an incidental part of the provision to the person of medical, surgical or maternity services.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 10.
Tá
- Ardagh, Catherine.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Casey, Pat.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Cummins, John.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Mark.
- Daly, Paul.
- Davitt, Aidan.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Garvey, Róisín.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- McGahon, John.
- McGreehan, Erin.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
- Ward, Barry.
Níl
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Boylan, Lynn.
- Clonan, Tom.
- Gavan, Paul.
- Hoey, Annie.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Sherlock, Marie.
- Wall, Mark.
- Warfield, Fintan.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Joe O'Reilly; Níl, Senators Paul Gavan and Lynn Boylan..
Pursuant to Standing Order 57A, Senator Rebecca Moynihan has notified the Cathaoirleach that she is on maternity leave from 6th February to 18th August, 2023, and the Whip of the Fine Gael Group has notified the Cathaoirleach that the Fine Gael Group has entered into a voting pairing arrangement with Senator Moynihan for the duration of her maternity leave.
Amendment declared carried.
I welcome the students from Blackrock College who are in the Visitors Gallery today as guests of Senator McDowell. They have recently completed transition year and fifth year. I also welcome Caroline and Neasa who are with them today. I also welcome our guests today from the United States of America, from Quinnipiac University law group in Connecticut. We also have a family from Brazil who are here as well. They are all very welcome to Leinster House today.
Bill reported with amendments.
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 7, lines 32 and 33, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 8, line 34, to delete “Scheme” and substitute “Scheme (in this Act referred to as the Office of the Chief Deciding Officer.)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 10:
In page 9, lines 6 and 7, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute“Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 11:
In page 11, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
“(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3), the matters referred to in that subsection include the following:
(a) applications and determinations made under Part 3;
(b) the staff and other resources available to assist the Chief Deciding Officer in the performance of his or her functions in the period concerned;
(c) the training and other support provided to the Chief Deciding Officer and staff referred to in paragraph (b).”.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 12 and 13.
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 13, line 20, after “in” where it secondly occurs to insert “column 2 of”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 10.
Tá
- Ardagh, Catherine.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Casey, Pat.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, John.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Mark.
- Daly, Paul.
- Davitt, Aidan.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Garvey, Róisín.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- McGahon, John.
- McGreehan, Erin.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
- Ward, Barry.
Níl
- Black, Frances.
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Boylan, Lynn.
- Clonan, Tom.
- Gavan, Paul.
- Hoey, Annie.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Sherlock, Marie.
- Wall, Mark.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Joe O'Reilly; Níl, Senators Victor Boyhan and Mark Wall..
Pursuant to Standing Order 57A, Senator Rebecca Moynihan has notified the Cathaoirleach that she is on maternity leave from 6th February to 18th August, 2023, and the Whip of the Fine Gael Group has notified the Cathaoirleach that the Fine Gael Group has entered into a voting pairing arrangement with Senator Moynihan for the duration of her maternity leave.
Amendment declared carried.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 14, line 10, after “in” where it secondly occurs to insert “column 2 of”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 10.
Tá
- Ardagh, Catherine.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Casey, Pat.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, John.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Paul.
- Davitt, Aidan.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Garvey, Róisín.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- McGahon, John.
- McGreehan, Erin.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
- Ward, Barry.
Níl
- Black, Frances.
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Boylan, Lynn.
- Clonan, Tom.
- Gavan, Paul.
- Hoey, Annie.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Sherlock, Marie.
- Wall, Mark.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Joe O'Reilly; Níl, Senators Paul Gavan and Lynn Boylan..
Pursuant to Standing Order 57A, Senator Rebecca Moynihan has notified the Cathaoirleach that she is on maternity leave from 6th February to 18th August, 2023, and the Whip of the Fine Gael Group has notified the Cathaoirleach that the Fine Gael Group has entered into a voting pairing arrangement with Senator Moynihan for the duration of her maternity leave.
Amendment declared carried.
Bill reported with amendments.
As it is now past 5.30 p.m., the debate must be adjourned in accordance with the order of the Seanad today.
Debate adjourned.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar fionraí ar 5.36 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 6.03 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 5.36 p.m. and resumed at 6.03 p.m.