Kathleen Funchion urges removal of six-month exclusion
Kathleen Funchion spoke in support of amendment 2 and her own amendment 62, urging the removal of the six month rule that she says excludes many survivors from the mother and baby redress scheme. She said the scheme also excludes boarded-out children and institutions not covered by the mother and baby home report, and announced she could not support the bill as drafted.
Public gallery and amendments
She welcomed members of the two mother and baby alliance who were present in the public gallery and noted their long-term activism. She spoke in explicit support of amendment 2 and her amendment 62 and credited a colleague with the idea of seeking a published report to keep the issues on the table.
Opposition to the six month rule
She argued that the six month cut-off is unfair and exclusionary, saying it can leave people who spent only slightly less than six months excluded from redress. She described the rule as cynical and a cost-saving measure that would leave out about 40% of survivors.
Boarded-out children and omitted institutions
She highlighted that those who were boarded out are excluded from the scheme and rejected the argument that they are too difficult to identify, arguing that attempts should be made to include them. She also criticised the decision to limit the scheme to institutions covered by the mother and baby home report, noting flaws and an addendum in that report.
Reports, redress and the Oak report
She called for the department to consider recommendations from the reports it commissioned, including the Oak report, whose consultation process she said had been welcomed by many but whose recommendations are now being ignored. She said genuine apology requires matching words with action and that financial redress is one important way the state can show sincerity.
Decision on the bill
She concluded that, because of the exclusions and failures she outlined, she could not support the bill in its current form and urged widening the scheme to include boarded-out people and all relevant institutions.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Thanks very much. First of all I just want to welcome members of the two mother and baby alliance that are here in the public gallery with us today and they have been active not just on this aspect of the scheme but on everything in relation to the mother and baby institutions over the years. I am speaking in support of amendment 2 but also I want to speak in support of my own amendment which is 62 which is very similar and I would agree with Deputy Kearns it was Deputy Sean Sherlock that I suppose first gave us the idea of we could look for a report to be published and in that way our amendments weren't going to be ruled out of order because there's really really important aspects of this scheme that needs to be discussed and aspects that I just don't think anybody really genuinely if they were looking into their heart could support these. I just don't understand how it can be that somebody who was born into an institution and spends less than six months can be seen as being excluded so you literally could have somebody seven months seven months and three weeks and three days and they're just totally excluded. We can't quantify the horrors and the abuse and the just appalling treatment that were inflicted on women and children. I know under the eyes of the state and the religious institutions let's not forget them but the state mainly oversaw all of these institutions. We can't say that somebody suffering who went in for one month a year or longer or six months. It really is very cynical. It leaves out as Deputy Karen said 40% of survivors and we all know it's a cost saving measure by government. It can be dressed up in any other way but the reality is that's why they're doing the scheme this way. It also excludes those who are boarded out and the argument that's given for that is that it's difficult to identify people. It would be very easy I believe to identify and at least an attempt should be made to identify all of those who have been boarded out and to ensure that they're included in the scheme. Again the costs would be astronomical for the state but I think that it's something if we're genuinely you know sorry about we need to stop just talking about it and we actually need to match our words with action. And the best apology when I used to work for the trade union we'd often come across people and they'd say it's not about the money it's about we want an apology and we want what was done to us recognised and I would always say back the best way of getting that is by actually somebody showing action and a financial payment redress is one of the best ways that the state can do that and they can show they're sincere by not excluding anybody by getting rid of the six month rule by not excluding those who are boarded out by not excluding also some institutions so it's only the institutions so it's only the institutions that were covered by the mother and baby home report which we all know in itself was flawed there's huge issues with there was an amendment or addendum added into that report so the state to a certain extent is acknowledging the flaws and the issues with that report yet you know all of the institutions that are not covered by that are also left out so unfortunately we will not be able to support this bill this evening because I just can't justify literally what I think pitting survivors against each other those that have have more than six months that were born in the institutions and those that have less and it's just it's impossible for us to support it I also want to mention the Oak report because as I have said before in this chamber that report for the most part people were happy with the consultation process and felt that they were listened to and the report was commissioned by the department and now we have a situation where the very good recommendations and recommendations in it are being totally ignored so again I just feel like that is nearly double cruelty it's adding insult to injury to x to ignore all of those reports when when people are actually finally listened to properly then all of that is ignored so it's sort of like that same patriarchal mindset that forced women into the institutions that forced women into the institutions in the first place and you know that stood over basically robbing people's children it's that same mindset that we're seeing throughout this and I also want to mention the mixed race children were placed as babies not only in the mother and baby institutions but in nurseries of other institutions and I feel that you know this isn't being looked at in terms of the breach of international human rights and I think that this along with all of the other points is just we have a chance here to actually make a really good scheme to not exclude people I've often said before that it's it's difficult to know how you put a price on any of this but the very first thing you do is ensure that you're not excluding somebody and a scheme that actually excludes 40% of the relevant people is wrong and flawed to begin with I think we need to change that we need to include the boarded out children we need to also include all of the institutions and look at the actual report that the department commissioned and let's look at those recommendations and I know there's a lot of amendments so I'll speak on some of the other points later and but I just feel really really strongly on that six months I just think I don't think any person that you were to ask could honestly say that they believe that that's fair and that's right it's it's clearly a cost saving measure and it really really needs to be removed thank you thank you
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
