Kathleen Funchion Calls for Strict Timeframes on Amendment 28

Thank you, Ciancord. Can I just confirm we're on amendment 28? We are, yeah. Okay, apologies. And thanks to Deputy Sherlock for moving this. So this is in relation to the timeframe as we've just been discussing, as we were discussing the last day as well. So I think just given, I suppose, the age cohort, and as I said, the last day, it's difficult at times to talk about this when you have such difficulties with the actual legislation. But I mean, one thing we definitely don't want is delays. So if we can, I think as soon as practical, it's just too vague. We're already seeing huge issues and huge delays in the process of the birth and information, like people looking for their records. So I just think we need to be really, really strict and have a really, really tight timeframe, particularly for anyone who's elderly. Thanks, Ciancord. And I do appreciate your indulgence in relation to this, because it is probably one of the last times that we're going to have the opportunity to discuss this in this chamber. And for those of us that have been dealing with this, just even in this context for the last number of years, it is important for us to make the final points. I will first speak to the technical aspect, so just to say, and put on record from Amendment 3438, we don't support on the basis that it talks about the dissolution of the agency and handing the powers over to the minister at that time. And as I said, the last day, when we discussed this, we don't support the dissolution of the agency. And there was a talk of five years, which I don't agree with. I think that's far too short. And for that reason, kind of technically following on, we don't support these amendments. But I do just want to take the opportunity just to mention again, and I know other deputies have done it, but I just think we can't say it enough. And what always strikes me about any time we have a conversation, whether it's in this chamber, or whether it's something being discussed, you know, in the media in relation to this topic. I've never failed to be surprised by somebody else new who contacts me, who I've known in some way, shape or form in my life that I didn't know anything about, you know, their connection with a mother and baby institution. And I think that shows how many people are affected, how many families are affected, how many generations are affected. And it honestly never fails to happen. As soon as we discuss this, somebody else gets in touch to tell their story. So I want to acknowledge all of those people. I want to acknowledge in particular those who were boarded out, who were literally treated as slaves in an awful lot of situations, who were treated horrifically. All of those people that spent even a minute in a mother and baby institution, but in particular, because they're being excluded, those that spent less than six months. And as one man just said to me today, again, somebody that I didn't, that I knew that I didn't know had any, I suppose, connection to the mother and baby institutions. A lot of people actually, you know, really weren't interested in the money. That wasn't the aspect for them at all in any way, shape or form, because as we've often said, how do you even put a price on this? Or how do you even start to put a price on this? But it's the fact that because that six months was put on it, it's kind of like saying to everybody six months and under, well, you don't count. And they have his words to me exactly where the apology that was issued in January 2021 rings hollow for him and so many others. I want to mention really briefly as well, the delay is because that is coming up in relation to people accessing their records. And then as Deputy Boyd Barrett has just said, it's a total mismatch. So some people are having great success and then others aren't getting any information. Then others are getting medical information and others are being told, no, you can't get that, are being told that they have no connection to a person who is deceased. And I want to just really briefly tell one story about somebody who was adopted from a mother and baby institution, had a sibling adopted, and the sibling tragically passed away in an accident when they were in their twenties. And this person's adopted parents have now passed away. And this person is trying to contact the mother of their sibling just to kind of say, look, in case the mother is trying to track this person down to let them know a little bit about their life, give them some pictures. And they've been told in the most recent round of birth information tracing, they have no connection, they can't get involved in that process. Now I don't, I think that's, there's a major error going on if that's the case. And I wanted to bring that to your attention because like certainly I know we had very serious issues with the birth information tracing bill and voted against it. But I don't think that that that should be the case at all for people who grew up together who are siblings, they're being told because there was no blood connection. And I just think that that's very, very wrong. And I wanted to get the opportunity to tell that story because there is so many different aspects to this. And unfortunately for people who have survived the institutions, it's one failure after another. It's one, it's an apology, but it's an apology in words only. And we all know, I mean, it's the most fundamental thing that we you would teach maybe your children or about apologies. You don't just say the words, you have to change your actions. I would say to my own sons that are consistently doing the same thing, you have to actually change your actions. You can't just keep saying sorry, ma'am, sorry, ma'am. So like an apology rings hollow unless the actions actually meet it. And it's not good enough to say to people that we're sorry and then say, well, actually 24,000 of you don't count, along with all of the boarded out that don't count as well. Thank you for the indulgence. In answer to the question in terms of the amendment made by Deputy Sherlock, the institutional payment scheme is based on, the access to the scheme is based on the evidence of a person's residence in one of the named institutions. That is primarily proved by the database that was created by the Commission of Investigation, the database that in 2020 this house voted to keep, to maintain and transfer to TSLA. This database will be accessible by the independent office set up overseeing the payment scheme and that will be the primary way in which residents within an institution can be proved. But we know when it comes to some of the other points that were made earlier, we know that every institution either didn't maintain full records or, more importantly, particularly for some of the older institutions, those records don't exist anymore. The vast, the majority of records are within the, were obtained by the Commission of Investigation and formed part of its archive which was transferred into my department again following its dissolution, but it doesn't maintain in every place. So in a situation where an applicant to this scheme, wishes to access the scheme and we're not able to, using the database, prove residence, that is the situation in which an affidavit will be applied. It's to recognise the scheme is designed to avoid affidavits where possible by simply allowing an official look at the records and see if the individual was in an institution at what time they were there for, but it recognises the reality that those records aren't in existence every time and offers an applicant another method by which they can access this particular scheme. In terms of the cost, you're right, there is a cost, obviously the cost there. It's important to note that section 37 of the legislation deals with legal costs and records that legal costs for applicants will be covered within the scheme. So we won't be leaving applicants out of pocket in terms of the application they make under the scheme. In terms of the points on the birth information tracing legislation and the wider legislation, I think it's important to say both the other two major pieces of legislation that we've brought through, the Birth Information and Tracing Act and the Institutional Burials Act, both went through very extensive discussions both in this House and in the Shannon, both were subject to very many amendments through that process. The Birth Information and Tracing Act guarantees for the first time that legal right of access to a range of information, the birth certificate, birth information, health information, early life information. 6,900 people have now applied for their information under that scheme since it opened in October. Already 2,000 of those applications have been answered. I spoke throughout this legislation and said every piece of information that is within the records and that is covered by the Birth Information and Tracing Act will be provided to people. But I also said, Deputy, that not all information is there. I was very upfront about that throughout the process. There may be institutions for whatever reason, whether it's a feeding schedule, whether it's a really important piece of information. If the information is in the archive as held by either my department, by the Adoption Authority of Ireland, the information will be provided to them, but there will be situations where that information doesn't exist. I want to also speak to Amendment 56, which I am totally opposed to. I don't know if interesting is the right word, but it talks about somebody being required to submit additional information. We have just heard yourself say, Minister, that in lots of cases the records are not available. If we know the records are not available, what additional information can people possibly submit? We have also heard all along whenever we ask about why are people under the six months who are born into the institutions and spend less than six months, we have all asked tonight and on countless debates why they have been excluded. One of the answers we get back is that they wanted this non-adversarial approach, but requesting additional information. In all reality, do you actually think that people who have nothing to do with a mother and baby institution are going to try and apply for this? Because that's sort of what it reads as. Again, it just goes back to the lack of trust and this sort of underlying patriarchal mindset that we know best. Women who were forced into the institutions in the first place, that was the mindset they were facing. We know best, this is what we need to do for you and your wellbeing. Total and utter nonsense. And the devastation that that's caused to those women and to the children that they had that are now adults, you know, and that is on a daily basis, that generational trauma still lives and exists, you know, in all aspects sometimes of people's lives. And then, you know, we have all of this, as I said in my last contribution, you know, there's an apology, but it really doesn't mean very much. And we're still doing the same thing. There's huge issues with the birth information and tracing bill, huge issues with people trying to access their records still. And now we're going to say, well, actually, if you don't comply with a timeframe, you're basically, you're going to be like, time is up, there's a clock that's ticking. But I mean, if you're entitled to this scheme, which I think is wrong to begin with, in the sense that it's not fair and it's not equitable, but if you're entitled to it, then how can you, if you just miss the 180 day deadline, how can you not be entitled to it? I don't believe that we should be putting that in there. I think, you know, I don't think there's any technicalities or any reasons why if somebody is entitled to it, that at some point then they should be signed off or they didn't comply, they didn't come back. That should be open to them to come back in the future. And that's, you know, sometimes when the debate is split over two days, it gets disjointed. And now I think I feel I know why the five-year rule is being put in place, because if you miss that, then sorry, you know, the ship has sailed for you. And I just think, no matter what way anybody tries to dress this up, it's a cost-saving measure. And we cannot be looking at this. We can't look at trauma and all of the human rights abuses. We can't look at it in a cost-saving lens. It has to be looked at for exactly what it was, a human rights abuse on the state and the churches. And let me mention them again, the religious institutions and, of course, the role that the pharmaceutical companies had in the legal vaccine trials. And again, I reiterate that we should be going after the churches and we should be going after the pharmaceutical companies. You know, they've acknowledged their role. They've apologised for their role, which obviously means nothing, because they don't want to pay any money towards the redress. But I mean, I think that gives the state the opportunity to look at pursuing them through the courts if needed. But just to go back to Amendment 56, I do not support this. I don't believe that it's right to be asking for additional information when we know that the information is limited. The state can't say to somebody looking for their records, we have limited information, and then say to someone, sorry, now you need to give us additional information to apply for the scheme. I mean, it's total hypocrisy. So I don't support that amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks very much, Chair. In terms of what this section is seeking to achieve and responding to the questions raised by Deputy Function and Deputy Boyd Barrett about why send back for more information. So this section would primarily apply in a situation where an applicant has made an application, the deciding officer had said your name isn't in the database at the moment. Can you provide information in terms of you being in this particular institution? At that point, we've discussed already, an affidavit is the approach that will ground that. What this says is when the chief deciding officer communicates with the applicant, they're told they have 60 days upon which to provide that affidavit. If they do not respond within that 60-day period, there's a second communication is sent with a second encouragement to come and provide the relevant information. If that isn't responded to, a third communication is sent after which one more 60-day period exists. So there's a 180-day period within which the applicant can respond to the request for information. I think it is also important to say that even if that 180-day period lapses and the applicant hasn't come back, the applicant still has a right subsequently to come back and seek to have their application resumed. So there is both a time period of 180 days at the basis of six months and then a secondary element where people can come back, even if they fell outside of that time period, to provide the relevant information and seek to have their application resumed. I know that the placing of time limits like this, and I know the opposition have spoken to in a scheme of this scale and a scheme of this importance, the placing of time limits can look to be something that is bureaucratic. I suppose the point I will make is where we are dealing with a scheme where we expect about 34,000 applicants to have a very significant number of initial applications within the system without any kind of conclusion in terms of will they be come to inclusion or not, puts, I suppose, a further burden on a scheme at a time when the priority should be providing and answering the applications and providing the payments and providing the medical cards for those who are applying under the scheme. But I think it is important to just restate the fact that someone, even if they do not communicate back within the six-month period, can still come back and make it further, reactivate their application. Thank you, Minister.