Ivana Bacik: Protect Bessborough, State Must Secure Site

Go raibh maith agat, Ceann Comhairle. Taoiseach, last Thursday's decision granting development to proceed, granting permission for development to proceed on the former Besper mother and baby home is indeed deeply disappointing. It has caused immense distress and concern to survivors and to many more, to people across the country and I've been listening carefully to what you've said but I think it is extremely distressing for everyone to hear the condition, the conditionality on the permission that works must stop if human remains are found on the grounds. That alone should give cause for immense concern for anyone who has read anything of the history of Bespera. Taoiseach, 10 days ago I visited the site myself. It's in your own constituency, I know you've been there yourself. I was there with survivor advocate Carmel Canfield, I was there with Labour Senator Laura Harman, our councillors Keir O'Connor and Peter Horgan. We saw firsthand the very poignant memorial there bearing the names of just some of those women and children who lived and died at Bespera. Survivors in the local community had to assemble this memorial themselves because there's so little to mark the suffering of the thousands of mothers and babies who passed through that institution over many decades. 923 babies who died there, just 64 accounted for, over 800 babies missing. So Taoiseach, standing at the site, the weight of suffering is palpable and we owe those who suffered there, those mothers, those babies and their descendants and their families, a proper memorial and we owe them a duty of preservation. Bespera should be a site of conscience and there's huge cross-party agreement on that. So last Thursday's decision has understandably caused this outpouring of distress. The decision was made without access to relevant records and I know you've debated that to and fro but I think we can all agree it was made without access to all relevant records and without the benefit of modern technology being used to survey those grounds extensively. Taoiseach, often when we talk about institutional abuse the government's trying to make amends for terrible wrongs that happened in the past, I'm thinking of the Bill Keneally case that we're going to be discussing this afternoon, but this time we have an opportunity to prevent a wrong from happening because there are babies unaccounted for, living survivors like Terry Mayer today in the examiner telling us they've witnessed burials on the grounds of Bespera. So this is a live issue and we still have time to do the right thing. Imagine if we'd concreted over the site at Chua before Catherine Corliss had carried out her incredible work there. Imagine what would have been lost. We can't allow that to happen at Bespera. Two weeks ago Taoiseach, you conceded in this house that Cork City Council should have compulsorily purchased the site years ago. Let's approach this debate with honesty. You said that, I agree with you, but Cork City Council did not CPO the site, so what now? If you genuinely believe, and I think you do, the site should have been acquired, then there's a moral imperative on your government to act now. The state should secure Bespera through compulsory purchase if necessary, or indeed by negotiating with the developer. It's not too late to do this. No building work has started yet. Bespera must be brought into state ownership, properly investigated, preserved as a site, and made home to a fishing memorial for survivors. Taoiseach, please. Deputy, your time is up. First of all, Deputy, I appreciate the constructive manner in which you've raised the questions, and particularly your last line, how can you work with us? I appreciate that response. You haven't attempted to name call anybody or misrepresent people. I appreciate that. And what I was endeavouring to say is the Commission did examine the site extensively, including cartographic and archival research, site surveys. It concluded that while it is likely that some children are buried on the grounds, that's somewhere within the 60 acres, it found no physical or documentary evidence locating burial sites. Early on when I spoke to survivors, there was differing perspectives, not this year, but certainly two to three years ago, in terms of how we deal with the 60 acres and how we deal with the site itself. Because it's not just this specific one that Board Planola has made adjudication. One of the difficulties is that excavation, I'm advised, without evidence of location is neither feasible nor lawful. That's a problem. Under the Institutional Burials Act of 2022, the Government can only appoint a Director of Authorised Intervention where it is satisfied that burials have taken place and there is evidence those burials are manifestly inappropriate. So in the case of Besborough, I'm advised that the legal threshold cannot currently be met, either because the location of any burials remains unknown. However, there are significant and meaningful planning protections in respect to this specific application at Besborough. One, that a forensic archaeological monitoring strategy is mandatory. Two, that a forensic archaeologist must be present throughout excavation works. And all works must cease immediately if human remains are discovered, as you have said. That's obviously designed to protect and ensure dignity, protection and accountability. Now, in terms of the wider issue of the CPO, CPOs just don't happen automatically, even if you apply for them. And there are huge legal thresholds to be overcome in respect of a CPO of a site like this, particularly given that the Council have in their county development or city development plan designated as appropriate for housing and actually gave planning permission, the Council did, in terms of planning executive function to the development of housing there, which has now been endorsed by Board Planola. So a CPO is not a straightforward, simplistic thing that the Government can do by just pressing a button. And that needs to be acknowledged also. So this does need reflection. It does need examination. I fully accept the disquiet that is out there. And we have done everything we possibly can over the last number of years in all of the action plan that was outlined by the last Government in fulfilling that action plan in all of the areas that were covered at that particular time, in relation, as I say, to access to records, in terms of a redress scheme, and much, much more than just that. We actually did pass an Institutional Burials Act, which is now operational in Tune, and yielding outcome there. And up to now, there was no real push. It's been a pleasure to excavate the entire 68 acres at Bessborough. Well, Peter, I've listened carefully to your response. And I thank you for your considered engagement. And I welcome the fact that you said that there should be a period of reflection and examination. It's not too late. And it's not too late to look at other options, beyond the CPO option. I've said it's possible now that you might engage with the developer. And Taoiseach, I might ask that you would consider doing that. You would have the support of the public. Nearly 10,000 people have signed the petition calling for CPO. It doesn't have to be by way of CPO, though, that the site comes into state ownership, that it can become and be preserved as a site of conscience. Last night, Cork City Council unanimously agreed the site should be CPO. So there's huge support for this. I walk to the site with Carmel Council. I know the issues and the scale of the site. But we overcame those issues at Chua through working together constructively. Where there's a will, there's a way on this. And Taoiseach, it seems to me, with the right political will, the objections can be overcome. The difficulties can be overcome. We can use modern methods of technology to geomap sites to look at identifying potential burial grounds. But I think you'll agree with me, it's deeply chilling to read that the conditions include that the construction will stop if human remains are found. Taoiseach, please. That's just not acceptable, I think, in a site like this. We can say it's deeply chilling, but it is with a view to protecting human remains. I mean, that is important as well. And I think that's something, actually, that should be in the planning condition. Because if it wasn't in the planning condition, the developer could do what the developer would want to do if it came upon human remains. And that's one of the issues here. We're dealing with a 68. I know the site very well. I've known it all my life. There's been buildings put on that site over the years. Different buildings. The state has their services on that site, funded by the state, which are new buildings and so on. Social services and so forth. And certainly, I will engage with you and I will take on board some of the suggestions that you've made in respect of your contribution. But we also have to examine, what if there are no burials in that specific site at all? What if there are none? Sorry, Deputy. Thank you. Thank you.