Bríd Smith condemns exclusion of 24,000 survivors from scheme
Bríd Smith spoke in support of an amendment to widen a redress scheme, arguing the current arrangement coldheartedly excludes 24,000 survivors. She said the scheme's six-month cutoff and other exclusions are unacceptable and called for a redesign that treats all survivors fairly.
Scope of exclusion
The deputy warned that roughly 24,000 survivors are excluded from the scheme, including those who spent six months or less in homes, and estimated almost 40% of people who suffered are left out. She argued that six months of someone’s life cannot be dismissed given the lasting trauma and separation experienced.
Accusations against the State and institutions
She accused the State of prioritising cost-saving, likening the approach to "the work of a cold-hearted accountant" aiming to minimise cost to the State. She criticised the decision not to pursue religious orders such as the Bon Secours Orders, noting the order now operates as a major private health provider with significant assets.
Impact on survivors and families
The deputy described survivors as "gasping for air," receiving emails full of sadness and anger, and said this is often survivors' last chance to be heard. She emphasised lifelong consequences - forced family separation, loss of identity and intergenerational trauma - that continue to affect survivors and their descendants.
Support for the amendment and demand for a redesign
She urged colleagues to back the meagre amendment so a report can be produced and the scheme revisited, while stating the preferable outcome would be to scrap the current scheme and redesign it to include everyone fairly and decently. She warned that, as drawn, the bill will inflict further hurt and called on the Minister and Government to broaden redress rather than defend exclusions.
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.
I do not mind repeating some of the things I said the last time I spoke on this, but I do want to wholeheartedly support this amendment on the basis that it does give us a meagre opportunity to address the issues on behalf of the 24,000 survivors who are excluded, coldheartedly excluded from the scheme. I do not know if you think that way or if you think you need to give them a reason why, but you have never given a reason that is acceptable why you have excluded people who are six months or less in the homes. Six months of your life does not matter, the separation, the trauma of what happened to you and your family does not matter for the rest of your life. It is absolutely unfathomable trying and understanding what you are doing. What it looks like is the work of a cold-hearted accountant whose main job is to minimise the cost to the state. It is funny we are revisiting this team again, having visited over and over again and disorrected us in the last two days in the shape of a denial of redress and compensation to people who are in old folks' homes or people who suffered with disabilities. Sorry, nursing homes I should have said, or people who suffered with disabilities. There is a team that runs through this, from Bridget McCall to Cervical Check to nursing homes and now to the survivors. The state scrapes and scrubs on looking after ordinary people and it is disgraceful. And yet the Minister will come in another day and boast of the billions that we have in reserve because we are doing so well. We have great multinational companies here and we do so well on corporation tax but we deny ordinary people their rights. This is outrageous and there is a huge amount of anger in relation to it. I am sure you have been getting hundreds of emails like I have, like everybody else in this chamber has been getting over the last couple of days in relation to this. And it is almost like you can feel survivors are gasping for air. This is their last chance for somebody to listen, to do something for them. And some of the emails are really terribly, terribly sad and tragic, but mostly it is the anger that comes through. And the anger is speaking to you and it is claiming that you claim that you pursue a twin tenant of acting with kindness and doing no harm. But they say, and in their words, this scheme excludes and exclusions are heaping abuse upon abuse. So even this discussion and this bill which will be passed, I have no doubt, because the Government have the majority, is another act of abuse. It is another act of, you know, hurt, abuse, pain, ignoring people's real lives. And I am really baffled, Minister, that you are not doing the right thing by the survivors, that you will not widen the redress and that you accept that what you are doing is okay, that somehow it is acting with kindness or taking the interests of people at heart. It is not. It is all about saving money to the State. And at the same time, the State does not pursue the religious orders. And I mentioned this before, that the Bon Secours Orders, who is responsible for a huge amount of this pain, hurt and abuse, is now the biggest provider of private health care in the country. And has lots of coffers, lots of land, lots of profits. And we still are looking at a meagre system of redress that is excluding almost 40% or probably around 40% of the people who suffered under this system. You are signalling a complete failure of the State to recognise the lifelong consequences of forced family separation, the loss of identity and the abuse that that has meant to generations. And it is generations who suffer. It is not just the immediate survivors, but that suffering, that scarring, is passed on as a sort of almost like a piece of DNA to other generations, because it hurts so much, and it leaves people in such isolation. So, you know, this is our chance to raise those concerns. And I would hope that you will pass this very meagre motion. And fair play to those who have put in this amendment to say that we need that report. And that report, feeding into it, will give us a chance to revisit this again. What we would love is to scrap what you are doing, to, as has been said by previous deputies, to redesign a scheme that treats everybody fairly, equally and decently. And not to have to stand over this, not just for the rest of your lives, but for the rest of their lives, and for all that the future may contain for them. I think this attitude runs through the government, through the state. And as I said earlier on, you can go right down a linear line from Bridget McCall, through cervical check, to, you know, the nursing homes, and now this. And I think that, you know, the government should hang its head in shame. And I would have expected better from you, not trying to personalise this, but I genuinely would have expected better from you. I would have expected you to throw all your toys out at Bram until every single survivor was included, and nobody left behind. I would have expected you to throw all your toys out at Bram until every single survivor of Bram until every single survivor of Bram until every single survivor of Bram.
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.
