Residential Institutions

Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 24 March 2022

Thursday, 24 March 2022

Ceisteanna (9)

Catherine Connolly

Ceist:

9. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth the details of the promised payment scheme to make once-off payments of €3,000 to persons affected by illegal birth registration in the files of an institution (details supplied); his plans to extend this payment scheme to all persons affected by illegal birth registrations; the timeline for when the payment scheme will be operational; the calculations or analysis upon which the figure of €3,000 was based; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15471/22]

Freagraí ó Béal (6 píosaí cainte)

Deputy Catherine Connolly

Again, I am going back to the question arising from Professor Mahony's report and one of his 17 recommendations and conclusions. It relates to the payment of €3,000. I have had the privilege of hearing the Minister's reply previously. I am happy with that reply. The content is perfect. He set out the answer. However, he is doing so in a way that does not take cognisance of the 17 recommendations which said that doing nothing is not an option. That is also set out in the context of delays to date. I ask the Minister to be specific on the details of the €3,000 payment and when it will be extended to others.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

I thank the Deputy. In March, following publication of the independent review into illegal birth registrations, I asked Professor Conor O'Mahony, the special rapporteur on child protection, to consider the significant complexities and challenges which arise regarding the issue of illegal birth registrations and to provide a report proposing an appropriate course of action. On 14 March, I published the report which sets out the 17 numbered recommendations.

Recommendation 16 in the report from the special rapporteur on child protection was that provision should be made to cover legal costs associated with a declaration of parentage of persons affected by illegal birth registrations. In response, the Government approved a once-off payment of €3,000 for those individuals whose illegal birth registrations had been confirmed by Tusla from the files of St. Patrick's Guild. That once-off €3,000 payment is intended as a contribution towards costs such as creating or amending wills or seeking a declaration of parentage. While it could also be used for DNA testing, Tusla has covered the cost of DNA testing for individuals in cases where records were insufficient to confirm an illegal birth registration and will continue to provide the support.

Tusla already holds confirmation of illegal birth registrations from the files of St. Patrick's Guild that can form the basis for payment to the individuals affected without any need to bring forward evidence and meet a certain burden of proof. There may be potential to extend the payment to other confirmed cases after the Birth Information and Tracing Bill has been passed to access records and people with suspicions may, therefore, be able to access the evidence necessary to confirm illegal birth registrations and effect a change in the birth register.

In terms of the basis for the figure of €3,000, this was by the work of the interdepartmental group on illegal birth registrations and the special rapporteur's recommendations in terms of the purpose of the payment. My officials are currently working to establish a scheme with the intention of making payments as soon as possible in 2022.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

We know that the potential extent of illegal birth registrations is huge. We know from the independent reviewer in Northern Ireland that there could be up to 20,000 cases or more. If we do not examine, we cannot find. The three monkeys come to mind. I mean that not in a disparaging way, but it seems to be a case of see, hear and do no evil. If we do not look, we cannot find.

The report from Professor O'Mahony in September was not published until March. That came on foot of the independent reviewer's report from Northern Ireland which is dated 2019 and was published in 2021. She recommended that we look at suspicious files. We have not looked at them. The 17 recommendations from Professor O'Mahony did not advise a payment of €3,000. He referred to making money available, but did not confine payments to those linked to St. Patrick's Guild. Why has the Minister made a decision that the payment should be confined to cases linked to St. Patrick's Guild on the basis that there is no evidence? We can never get evidence if we do not look for it. Other reports advised not to burden Tusla because it does not have the resources, or advised that it should be given resources if it is asked to do this work.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

The Deputy is absolutely right in saying that if we do not look we cannot find. That is why I have prioritised the birth information and tracing legislation, which provides the mechanisms to allow us to find this information and get birth certificates, records and early life information which is the core way in which we can find out if someone has been subjected to an illegal birth registration. We have the provision of a specialised tracing team, which Professor O'Mahony recommended. We have set out in our response to the recommendations how that will be implemented by Tusla. Tusla requires some additional legislative support to undertake the kind of detailed tracing that will be needed to determine what has happened.

As the Deputy knows, we are dealing with illegal acts that were usually deeply covered and concealed. For whatever reason, that was not done in St. Patrick's Guild. Therefore, we are providing the legislative tools in the Birth Information and Tracing Bill, and the resourcing tools to Tusla in terms of the €3 million in additional allocation in this year's budget. We are providing the mechanisms so that we can look for information.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I appreciate that the Minister is doing his best, but I ask him to forgive my frustration given the context. At every step of the way there has been a delay. The Minister has to acknowledge that. Professor O'Mahony's report is dated September and was not published until St. Patrick's week.

I understand a lady asked for her name not be mentioned, which is the reason I have not mentioned it. I have asked the Minister to confirm whether she asked for her name to be taken from the independent review that she carried out because there were changes or alterations. I do not wish to say something that was incorrect. That is why am not using her name. I am not using her name because she, apparently, has asked that it not be used. Can the Minister tell me whether that is true so that I can attribute the very good work she did to her? That work was delayed for almost two years.

When there is that type of background, it is hard to have confidence in the system. I am here and I have a voice. I am speaking for the people who are voiceless outside and do not have any trust. I find it increasingly difficult to keep my trust. I am on record as having praised the Minister and have said I do not doubt his bona fides, but history is becoming more and more fragmented even in these reports. I only have summaries of the reports before me.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

Professor O'Mahony conducted a very detailed piece of work within a short period of time. When I get detailed work, I give it the time to consider it. There were 17 detailed and complex recommendations. I do not rush into things in this area. I give them time and consideration. Through doing that we have a strong Birth Information and Tracing Bill and strong Institutional Burials Bill because they were given the time to assess the various elements that needed to be addressed.

In the context of the independent reviewer's report, the independent reviewer was commissioned to do a piece of work. She did that piece of work. The Attorney General recommended a small number of redactions from the report. I have to accept the response of the Attorney General. Our Department indicated that to the legal reviewer. She indicated she was not happy with those and we indicated that was the legal advice we required. She asked for her name to be removed. We commissioned this piece of work from her, therefore we believed it was appropriate that we publish it and attribute it to her.