Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on Second Stage of this important legislation. It is incredibly worthwhile legislation, which will have a very real impact on women at a very important juncture in their lives. The Bill provides for two main areas of reform. The first is to allow a pause in maternity leave for treatment for women facing serious illness. In this regard, I acknowledge three women whose tireless campaigning work has made such a huge contribution in bringing us to this moment today. Erica Tierney, Emma McGuinness and Mary Canavan all received cancer diagnoses during their pregnancies and had to begin their maternity leave on the births of their babies while also going through treatment for cancer. Because Erica, Emma and Mary, with the support of the Irish Cancer Society through the "Leave Our Leave" campaign, have so generously shared their personal stories and campaigned so passionately, we are now so close to making this legislation a reality, meaning that no more women will find themselves in the heart-breaking situations that these women endured. I thank each of them sincerely for their tireless work. Because of their campaigning, there is cross-party support for these proposals to allow women who have cancer and other serious illnesses to pause their maternity leave. My understanding is that, if enacted, Ireland will be among the first countries in the world to provide this facility to pause maternity leave. This is something of which we can all be justifiably proud.

The Bill provides for an entitlement for an employee who requires treatment for serious medical reasons to postpone maternity leave for a period of up to 52 weeks. The need for the postponement must be certified by a doctor or consultant. The serious medical reasons include mental health issues as well as physical. To ensure this pertains to very serious illnesses, while ensuring it includes mothers with a range of serious diagnoses, the Bill provides for a definition of a serious health condition that limits it to a condition that both "entails a serious risk to the life or health of the employee" and requires necessary and ongoing medical intervention. For mental health conditions it is limited to treatments that include hospitalisation. The postponement must be for at least five weeks. There can only be one period of postponement but this can be extended once. The Bill sets out the procedures for notifying an employer of the intention to postpone the leave and to end the period of postponement. After the period of postponement, the employee can resume their maternity leave and take their unpaid maternity leave and other leaves as usual.

The second area of reform is to introduce maternity leave for Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is clear that Oireachtas Members who give birth should be able to take maternity leave and that their ability to do so is crucial to our efforts to improve the level of gender balance in the Oireachtas. It is important these provisions are in place before the upcoming election to give a strong signal to female candidates that having children is in no way a barrier to political life. The Bill sets out that any absence by a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas from performing their duties as a Member due to the birth of a child will be called maternity leave. Such an absence may be up to 26 weeks. I plan to bring forward a Committee Stage amendment to clarify that such leave can be postponed in the event of serious illness. This is only right, considering the other reform we are making in the Bill, which I have already discussed.

Through the work of the Ceann Comhairle and the forum on a family friendly and inclusive parliament, many processes and procedures are in place that can facilitate and support Members in taking maternity leave, and this legislation provides the entitlement to this leave in statute. I thank also the Irish Women's Parliamentary Caucus who contributed greatly to the work of my Department in bringing forward these proposals. It was immensely helpful to understand the challenges facing women Oireachtas Members who have a baby during their term in the Houses.

I have indicated to the joint committee and to the Seanad my intention to bring forward Committee Stage amendments on provisions related to the regulation of non-disclosure agreements, NDAs. These proposals were included in the general scheme, and were considered by the committee during pre-legislative scrutiny. These proposals build on a previous Private Members' Bill sponsored by Senators Ruane, Flynn, Black and Higgins. The Bill passed all Stages in the Seanad. My Department's public written consultation as part of the review of the Equality Acts, on which I published a report last year, invited submissions on NDAs. It is of note that there was significant support for progressing the proposals in that Bill. These amendments were approved by Cabinet on Tuesday and will be brought forward on Committee Stage.

Deputies will also be aware that, on Tuesday, I announced the Government had also agreed to bring forward legislation which aims to provide for the preservation of all privately-held administrative and other records that relate to Magdalen laundries, mother and baby and county home institutions, industrial schools, orphanages, adoption agencies and boarding out arrangements, as well as the bodies that ran or oversaw these institutions and placement arrangements. This legislation has been called for by survivors and former residents, affected persons, their families and advocates, who want to ensure that records which support understanding of their identity and the institutional systems which shaped their life experiences in such significant ways are preserved. Given the urgent requirement for this legislation, I signalled that I would introduce it in the Houses next week and that it would be brought forward as Committee Stage amendments to the Maternity Protection Bill.

As Members will be aware, we are working under certain time constraints if we want to be fully confident of getting this legislation enacted. Initial priority for drafting was given to the amendments to the Maternity Protection Act 1994, as we are aware of the very great urgency with which these amendments are needed. I am very conscious in particular of those women who may miss out on the opportunity to avail of the pause in maternity leave if this does not get through the Houses. It is my hope that this Bill can be advanced quickly, recognising the crucial and urgent nature of the provisions to be contained in it.

I will now turn to the provisions of the Bill. Section 1 amends the Maternity Protection Act by the insertion of a new section 14C after section 14B. The new section creates a new entitlement in the Act for an employee who requires ongoing treatment for a serious health condition, including physical and mental health conditions, to postpone maternity leave for a period of between five and 52 weeks.

Section 2 provides that absence by a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas, duly notified, related to the birth of a child, shall be called maternity leave for a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas. This shall be for a period of up to 26 weeks.

Section 3 provides for the short title and commencement of the Act.

I will take this opportunity to commend the good work done by the Irish Cancer Society in raising awareness of the difficulties faced by new mothers who are diagnosed with cancer while on maternity leave. I believe this is very important and progressive legislation, which includes some long-overdue measures for women in this country, and I am very pleased to be bringing this forward. I commend the Bill to the House.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Kerrane for ceding time to me to speak on the Bill. The Labour Party broadly welcomes the Bill. I ask that an additional explanatory memorandum be supplied on the NDAs and the records. It would be good parliamentary practice if it were possible.

We reserve the right to bring forward amendments on records and NDAs as well as the maternity leave protection elements of the Bill.

I wish to raise one key point in relation to the proposed new section 14C(11) to be inserted into the Maternity Protection Act 1994.I refer to the definition concerning "necessary medical intervention" in relation to mental health. The proposed legislation states this "means inpatient hospital treatment". We have received correspondence from IBEC, and I have no doubt that the Minister has received the same correspondence. I ask if the Minister and his officials, between this Stage and Committee Stage, could engage with IBEC on that specific provision because it has raised concerns about the risk of the Bill giving rise to discrimination. It is serious enough to warrant some attention. As I said, we reserve the right to revisit this issue on Committee Stage.

I refer briefly to the correspondence IBEC sent to us. In essence, the organisation submits that many individuals with serious physical health conditions receive treatment as outpatients due, not least, to the advancement in treatments available and the availability of community-based facilities. It goes on to say that despite this, the Bill excludes from its remit individuals with serious mental health conditions who receive treatment as outpatients. It is submitted by IBEC that this will expose employers to a claim of direct discrimination, for which there can be no objective justification under the EEA.

There is a bit of time between now and next week to look at these aspects again if the Minister is of a mind to engage with IBEC and perhaps other stakeholders like the trade unions. I say this because we do not want this legislation to have an unintended consequence. We reserve the right to submit amendments in this regard on Committee Stage. I again thank Deputy Kerrane for ceding some of her speaking time to me. I am very grateful.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Sherlock is most welcome. I thank the Minister and welcome this important legislation. It is clear the Minister was very adamant this was done and passed and that we would move swiftly to do so. I commend him in this regard. This legislation has important elements. I welcome them and acknowledge all the Minister's work in this regard. Allowing the postponement of maternity leave for mothers when they are seriously ill is an extremely important move. Like the Minister, I too commend the Irish Cancer Society on the wonderful Leave Our Leave campaign it ran. This legislation is very much in recognition of its work and I acknowledge the society's endeavours.

What is in this Bill will make a big difference to mothers in future by ensuring those who are ill or become ill on the birth of their babies will not lose out on the very precious time with them. It will give such mothers the time and space to get better and then allow them to have that time with their babies afterward. This is very important. I reiterate what Deputy Sherlock said about the mental health aspect. The Minister's opening remarks were not clear regarding the changes referred to in the Seanad and suggested by several Senators in relation to ensuring this element would not be based solely on the need to be an inpatient. Perhaps this has been changed already, but some clarification in this regard is important. We are always encouraging people to get support within their communities where possible and to use community healthcare, etc. We wish to ensure that what is in the legislation will not create a barrier when it comes to a mental health illness and not being able to postpone maternity leave. This is very much what this Bill is about and it would be a shame to see anyone denied for this reason. I reiterate, therefore, what Deputy Sherlock said in this regard.

I also welcome the introduction of maternity leave for Oireachtas Members. It has been long overdue. It is an important element of this Bill and I welcome it. I also acknowledge the Minister's contribution and his commitment to work with Senators in relation to the NDAs. This is important. It is also important that we get those amendments right. The Minister had offered to engage with the Senators who had brought forward legislation previously. It is welcome. Where we are incorporating the issues with NDAs in this Bill, it is important we get it right. This is because it is not stand-alone legislation and is being included in this Bill. This is welcome and fine. I also welcome the addition to the legislation announced this week to put a statutory obligation on the private holders of records concerning Ireland's 20th century institutional and family separation systems. Legislation similar to this Bill was passed in the North of Ireland several years ago and it has resulted in more than 3,000 items being produced to the Public Record Office there. That is important and I welcome the addition in this regard to this Bill.

In relation to this Bill, I thought of the committee meeting we had yesterday in relation to Revised Estimates. We discussed the major underspend of more than €150 million in the context of the mother and baby homes redress scheme. I know the Minister is making every effort to ensure more applications go in under that scheme but even if the application numbers increase, I do not believe all the money there will ever be spent. I think it will just sit there. As this Dáil comes to an end, I take this opportunity to ask the Minister if he would look at those four institutions left out of the redress scheme.

I just met Michael Grant, who was in Temple Hill for almost a year. He was put in there at four weeks old and remained there until he was one year old when he was adopted out via an advertisement in a newspaper. It was said that Temple Hill at that time was notorious for adoptions to America and Mr. Grant believes this was the intention for him. I could not and cannot explain to Michael Grant why Temple Hill was excluded from this scheme. He was put in there as a baby of four weeks old. He had no medical need. Yet he has been told it was a hospital and that is why it was excluded. We do not have much time left in this Dáil, so it is important for the Minister to at least agree to consider this matter and look at it again. The money is there. I do not think the money allocated will be spent. I hope the number of applications to the scheme will increase, but I do not think it is going to increase enough to spend all that money. We have people who have suffered. There is no difference between babies no matter what institution they were placed in and left there. In Mr. Grant's case, that was for a year. He remarked to me as well how his mother had paid 5 shillings a week for that entire year, which was almost like rent to keep him there. Yet there is no recognition for him and I could not tell him why that was or why he was different to any other baby. I refer to how vulnerable he was.

I have not been in this role for very long, but I must say that the hardest part has been meeting those survivors and listening to their stories and what they have been through. I am conscious too in relation to this matter of all the records, and everything else, of the number of people who have gone from this world and will not have the opportunity to gain the recognition and respect they deserve. As this all comes to an end, I ask the Minister, given the large amount of money there and the underspending of more than €150 million, to give consideration to the survivors of the four institutions left out of the redress scheme. This would be something that would enable the Minister to have a real legacy as we come to the end of this Dáil. I just wanted to take this opportunity to raise this issue in the context of discussing the records and ensuring that they are not destroyed and will be maintained, having met Michael Grant and his daughter this afternoon.

Overall, I again commend the Minister on bringing forward this legislation. We and all the Opposition will work with him to ensure this Bill moves as fast as possible to ensure, in particular, the element of the postponement of the maternity leave is not delayed and no other mothers are denied access to maternity leave once they, hopefully, get better and recover from their illnesses. I thank the Minister.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I commend the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, on bringing forward this legislation into these sittings of the Oireachtas. It may be recalled that on 20 March this year, I introduced the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Bill 2024. It sought, in effect, to do exactly the same as the Minister is seeking to do in this legislation. Obviously, I am extremely supportive of this legislation. I welcome that the Government and the Minister made the decision to bring forward such legislation. I am not in any way proprietorial in respect of my own Bill and I welcome the expertise the Minister and his officials have put into drafting what can be difficult, technical legislation.

I drafted and introduced the Bill in March of this year because of the harrowing and traumatic stories I heard from women who were diagnosed with cancer while pregnant or immediately after their child was born. It is appropriate in my Bill, and indeed the Minister's Bill, that the illnesses covered by this legislation are not simply limited to cancer; they extend to all forms of serious illness. It has to be said that it was the women who came with stories of being diagnosed with cancer who had the effect of catalysing the Oireachtas into action. I also commend my party colleague, Senator Catherine Ardagh, who organised a very moving meeting in the Houses of the Oireachtas at which a number of women told their stories of what happened to them.

The provenance of this Bill is very instructive and useful for Members of the Oireachtas. Sometimes we are unaware of where the gaps or inadequacies in our legislation are. In fairness to Members, we will not know about the inadequacies or gaps unless people come forward and tell how their personal experiences have been affected by the absence of laws governing their situation. That is why it is so important we have societies such as the Irish Cancer Society and women who probably do not want to do so but have made the brave decision to go public to inform us about the very difficult circumstances they found themselves in.

I do not think there could be a more traumatic circumstance for a woman who has recently given birth to a child than to be told she has been diagnosed with cancer or another serious illness. If you mention this to members of the public they see immediately the gross unfairness in the fact that a woman who is entitled to enjoy maternity leave in effect loses the whole benefit of that maternity leave because it has been eaten up as a result of a sickness she is experiencing and in respect of which she is perfectly entitled to have sick leave from work. That is an area in which there was a gap in the law and I welcome the fact it has been resolved.

When I introduced my Bill in March the then Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, was coming near the end of his term in office. At the time, I commended him on having played a significant role in bringing forward legislation that provided for paternity leave. That is something we did not have in Ireland prior to the legislation introducing it. One of the discrepancies I pointed out to him, however, was that under the paternity leave legislation enacted by the Houses of the Oireachtas a number of years ago, a man was perfectly entitled to defer or postpone his period of paternity leave to a time that suits him. I indicated to the then Taoiseach that there was an inherent unfairness in the fact that a man could defer or postpone paternity leave but the same benefit did not arise in respect of maternity leave for a woman who is suffering from a serious illness. It may have been an issue that conflicted with the equality provision in the Constitution but I welcome the fact that, as a result of the enactment of this legislation, it is an issue that will not need to be considered by the courts.

I do not know what the statistics are in respect of the number of women each year who are diagnosed with cancer or a serious illness during pregnancy or immediately after pregnancy, but I would be surprised if it was less than 100. I suspect that between 100 and 200 women are affected by this. Now that the law is being enacted and the Oireachtas has given further attention to this issue, we may see that there are more women who will be entitled to avail of this maternity protection benefit.

The Bill the Minister and his officials have drafted and the one I drafted seek to do the same thing, namely, insert into the Maternity Protection Acts a new section 14C. The drafting the Minister has used is very easy to follow. It sets out that there has to be a serious health condition and the definition of that is that it "entails a serious risk to the life or health, including the mental health, of an employee, and ... in order to address the risk, requires necessary medical intervention that is ongoing for a period of time to be carried out in respect of the employee." It is very clear that this Bill is designed to deal with circumstances where there is a serious illness. Employers need not be fearful in respect of this Bill. Any decent employer will see the fairness in permitting a mother to be able to enjoy her maternity leave at a time when she is not undergoing medical treatment for a serious illness.

The other part of the legislation being introduced by the Minister, which was not contained in the Bill I introduced in March, is the extension of maternity leave to female Members of the Oireachtas. That is something I and Fianna Fáil fully support. It probably should have been done much sooner, in a previous Dáil, but it should be supported. We are trying to encourage more people, in particular women, into politics. I do not think it is feasible or possible for us to do that unless we are able to say to young women coming into politics that if they want to have a family, we will facilitate that family by permitting them to take their maternity leave.

I commend the Minister again and support the enactment of the legislation. I hope to see it on the Statute Book promptly.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I also welcome this legislation and commend the Minister on bringing it to this point. I hope we will get it through all the processes. It seems the Minister is determined to do so and that is welcome. This is a very important Bill to close all the gaps we have seen in legislation relating to maternity leave in recent years. The provision on illness is particularly important.

The impact this Bill will have for mothers, their children and their wider family will be enormous and invaluable. I was contacted recently by a constituent who had just given birth and had received a terminal diagnosis two weeks after giving birth. She spoke about that experience, the struggle of trying to navigate sick leave and the inability to postpone her maternity leave. She felt as if she had been robbed of those first six months. It is clear this legislation is needed and the impact it will have for many families cannot be underestimated. For this reason, I thank the Minister for bringing it through the Houses.

I will comment on the process, which I know can sometimes be difficult. We need to have a process in place and employers need to have certainty about that process and how it will work. Has the Minister looked at that process? An employee has to give two weeks' notice and then indicate when she will be back at work. Sometimes illness is not linear and it is very difficult to figure out when you will feel better and be in a position to return to work. Could some level of flexibility built into this?

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is built in.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am delighted to hear that because it is really important.

With regard to maternity leave for Oireachtas Members that is also very welcome and something we have been waiting a long time for. To date we have expected women either not to serve as politicians or to hide when they get pregnant and not go back to work. We made it very difficult for them. Enabling this is something I hope will change the face of politics. It will certainly create a more gender-positive image for people. Indeed, my party leader is looking forward to the arrival of her firstborn shortly. As a society we need to support women to perform roles, including in politics. To date we have expected women to do the hard work and meld themselves around society's needs as opposed to the other way. This is, therefore, a really positive development.

To go back to the mental health aspects of the illness, I understand the Bill only relates to very serious issues mental health requiring hospitalisation. That is a very extreme need and I wonder whether some flexibility can be brought into that. Can consideration be given to mental health illnesses that do not end up with a person being hospitalised but do cause significant challenges and difficulties to a mother trying to bond with her child?

When we come back to all this, ultimately, what we want is to give all mothers the same opportunity to enjoy time with and get to know their baby and get to know who they are as a mother. That maternity leave period is really important and if it is delayed or impacted in some way, it is important to be able to pause it. If people have mental health challenges, being able to pause without the need for that serious mental health difficulty to be accounted for would be important.

The first thing I want to note, which my Sinn Féin colleague may have referenced, is the impact on the decision to exclude babies under the age of six months from the system the Minister has put in place. When we look at the policies and this Bill, in which the Minister recognises the importance of maternity leave and bonding for the mother and the baby, it is as if one part the Minister's policies and one part of who he is recognise that the first six months are incredibly important. It just seems to be the opposite of the policy position the Minister took with regard to the mother and baby homes scheme and the exclusion from that scheme of those who were aged under six months. We are coming up to an election so I am not sure if there is any hope of getting that reversed, but if there is something the Minister could do, I know many people would appreciate it. That is something that was hard for many people to understand.

With regard to the retention of records, again, this is very welcome. I commend the work of Justice for Magdalenes Research, the Adoption Rights Alliance and the Clann Project, which I know support these measures. They have asked all of us to support them as well. It is, therefore, good to see this before the House. Northern Ireland passed similar legislation in 2022 and it is only right that we are now joining it on this front. This Bill is important in the context of the general data protection regulation, GDPR. We cannot allow institutions to hide behind GDPR and destroy records on the ground of minimising the amount of data they hold. The current guidelines around the retention of records within the HSE provide that data is saved for the lifetime of the patient plus eight years. In the context of this Bill, and due to the importance of retaining records on institutionalisation for us to have a full picture of the history of this State, it is important that the Minister work with the HSE to examine records it holds that should be preserved. This is of particular concern with regard to psychiatric institutions and other institutions that may fall under the category of what the Seán McDermott Street archive is seeking to preserve. That is one point to make.

With regard to the instances where we know records are not being properly preserved, it is right that these be established as offences. Can the Minister clarify whether the National Archives of Ireland will have the power to seize those records when we know their preservation is endangered and also whether there is potential for these instances to be treated as offences?

This is an important first step. We need to make every effort to preserve the records that are currently in existence. The next step is really to determine access and ensure that every survivor who wishes to access his or her own information can do so.

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Whitmore. We move now to the Independent Group. I call Deputy Connolly.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach Gníomhach. Fáiltím roimh an deis cúpla focal a rá faoin ábhar seo. Tá sé thar a bheith tábhachtach. Aontaím leis an mBille agus aontaím go bhfuil gá práinneach leis an mBille a chur tríd an Dáil. I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this.

The Minister has my support with regard to passing this legislation as speedily as possible. I have read the digest. The Minister explained in his opening statement that there are two areas of reform, one of which is to allow a pause in maternity leave for women who have a serious mental or physical illness. I appreciate that. I appreciate the work of his Department and also the women who forced this change. I will not repeat what he said but I share the Minister's gratitude to those people.

This legislation also seeks to introduce reform of maternity leave for Members of the House. It is of interest how far back people have campaigned for this. The current Ceann Comhairle sponsored the Maternity Protection (Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas) Bill 2013 and in 2020, Deputies Niamh Smyth and Anne Rabbitte sought to force this change. It is unfortunate that the Bill has to be rushed through the Dáil, although I agree with the Minister on this occasion, particularly as the Government is about to fall. I always welcome proper discussion of Bills, however. We can only learn from reading and discussing and then passing a fully comprehensive Bill. I welcome what is in it and appreciate the urgency.

It is unfortunate that we have not seen the amendments that will be brought forward next week. I complimented the Minister and his staff yesterday. It is very important that we have to do it; we are under pressure. Again, however, I would have preferred to have seen those amendments well in advance so we could look at them. The Minister will have my support in passing them, but there are always other issues around amendments, and it helps to have a proper discussion on them.

I have not had much time to study them but if I am right, the amendments to preserve documents are not to compel the handing over of documents but to compel their preservation. We find ourselves now in 2022, after so many inquiries, passing legislation to preserve and stop the destruction of documents. That very welcome and absolutely necessary but when we pause and reflect on it, we are not compelling the handing over of those documents. Documents have not been handed over on a voluntary basis. We are now sending out a message to please not destroy them and to preserve them. When we think about that, what does it tell us about what religious orders have learned or failed to learn or what Governments have failed to learn? One would imagine, after all the reports, that they would be queuing up to hand over the records so that we could have a full and comprehensive understanding of how we had 100 years of institutionalisation.

The "architecture of institution" was Professor Smith's term. Maybe I am not using it precisely, but the concept is the same. We had 100 years of confinement and institutionalisation. We now have a situation where we are forced, in the dying days of this Government, to force through legislation to insist on the preservation of these documents. To put that into perspective, we have material in the briefing documents we received, and I pay tribute to the three members who were at the briefing yesterday, namely, Dr. Maeve O'Rourke, Mr. Mark. Cohen and Ms Patricia Carey, and particularly to those people on the ground who have taken the trouble to send us emails and educate us. We know from Mr. Cohen - I do not have the precise year, but sometime over the last couple of years - that financial accounts of the Donnybrook Magdalen laundry were found in the abandoned former laundry site several years after the interdepartmental committee to establish the facts of State involvement in the Magdalen laundries. That report - the Martin McAleese report - concluded in 2013. I was never happy with that report, and I do not hide that fact. I read it from start to finish. Years after that report told us there were no records on the institution in Donnybrook and, similarly, one in Galway in which I know there are records, Mr. Cohen, an academic, found them as a result of the developer letting him onto the site.

If we go back further, while filming for the "States of Fear" documentary in the former Magdalen laundry at Sonderwell in 1988 - that is how many years ago it is now - Sheila Ahern and Mary Raftery came across a large ledger of accounts in a cupboard. The building, of course, had been sold by the Good Shepherd Sisters and was owned then by University College Cork, UCC. They were very good, and made copies of these records of accounts and subsequently returned the ledger to the Good Shepherd Sisters. Ms Ahern said that if they had not found the ledger, it would very likely have ended up dumped.

The third example the Minister or the briefing documents gave us referred to an owner of a pub buying the contents of the Limerick Magdalen laundry at an auction and four financial ledgers from the 1950s being used as props in the pub.

Can you imagine the ledgers being used as props in a pub? They featured in a BBC documentary in 2014. Kindly, the link has been given to us.

Of course, today's legislation comes after continued pressure, including the Report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse in 2009; and the collaborative forum, which, I might add, was never published, except the recommendations.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, it was fully published.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The collaborative forum of former residents of mother and baby homes and related institutions asked for this, the Clann report asked for this, the Department of Education pre-consultation report asked for this and so on.

The OAK report, the Minister will remember, was a consultative report that was done. It was very good. It took on board people's views. The OAK report, prior to the mother and baby home redress scheme, pointed out that it was important and then the mother and baby home report itself, for all its faults, made a recommendation, weak and all as it was, that religious orders should be approached for their records. I wonder did anybody approach the religious orders after that mother and baby home report? Perhaps the Minister is seeking the answer there on his phone but it is important to know whether anyone followed up on that recommendation, notwithstanding its weakness in relation to records from the religious orders. That is one question. The Minister might answer that in his summing up. I will be back in the Chair at that stage but I would appreciate an answer. Was that recommendation followed up?

Then we go back to the McAleese report. I remember reading that. Words fail me, as I get older, when I stand here after all the reports. It seems that reports are written to deflect, to divert, to hide, to obfuscate. The McAleese report certainly did that. It was there specifically to see what was the State involvement in the Magdalen laundries and whether they were run on a profit basis. They made a finding that they were not, of course, but that was not based on anything because evidence was missing and documents were missing. One was one of the Magdalen laundries in Dublin and the other was the one in Galway, which distinguished itself by a lack of documentation, notwithstanding that I have read in other reports, including the mother and baby home report, that detailed reports were given at regular intervals of the profit, and the money going in and out, in the Magdalen laundry in Galway to the bishop of Galway. Has he been asked? Has that diocese been asked for any records that it has? I note from this that some religious orders still are refusing to hand over or are causing problems.

I welcome it next week. However, it is as good as we can do at this point under pressure in terms of preservation of documents, non-destruction, creating an offence and for the National Archives to be able to request a statement. In the brief time I had with the Minister, yesterday or the day before, I asked, if that statement is required, what is the period of time allowed for that statement to be completed and sent back by the religious orders. Will the Minister clarify what is the offence if they do not and how will this happen? We are still utterly dependent on the voluntary nature of it, notwithstanding that it will be an offence not to preserve them and to destroy them. Will the Minister tell me how will that be enacted? The Minister has had no co-operation from the religious orders in relation to the mother and baby home redress scheme and making contributions. We have somebody working away, apparently beavering on our behalf, to intervene as a mediator. I do not know where that is at but judging from the outside, there has been no co-operation from the religious orders for the mother and baby home redress scheme.

I will finish on the mother and baby redress scheme and take the opportunity to say I am on record as deploring the arbitrary nature of the cut-off point of six months. The best way I brought that home was with a TD - I do not want to mention him again - who had a baby at the time. I told the Deputy he was wasting his time loving that baby for six months because, according to the Government theory, nought to six months is a tabula rasa. I cannot repeat that often enough. The Minister has arbitrarily excluded babies only a day on the right side of six months on no basis notwithstanding that a list of psychotherapists and psychologists wrote to him - I never saw it in my life - such was their concern at the arbitrary nature of that cut-off point. Of course, people who were boarded out are not getting a look-in, as are people of mixed race who also suffered. I am bringing this up because we do not seem to learn at any stage that when we are making redress, it must be comprehensive. We cannot continue because of cost-saving mechanisms in the Department or some mentality that says we cannot do that because it will be much too expensive when we know, from what Deputy Kerrane said, that the money has not been used and people are not coming forward in their droves and overwhelming the Department or the coffers of the State. Quite the opposite is the case. Where is the scope now, with the money we have ,to get rid of that arbitrary line? No doubt it will be challenged in the court. It simply will be challenged in the court. There is a chance to do it right and to make redress mean something.

I have mixed feelings about a national monument and a national site of conscience in Dublin. The way we deal with conscience is to apologise profoundly and with meaning and then to make redress to those who have suffered. We will struggle with our conscience because we were all part of a society that allowed that but the best way to make redress, in my opinion, is to as best as possible help those who went through such a vicious system to continue to live with dignity, with independence and knowing that we have learnt a lesson. That is not happening.

Perhaps the Minister could clarify the mechanics of how we will make these amendments, when we see them and when they become law. How will we enforce them and will the Minister tell me how the National Archives or anyone else who is involved in the implementation of this Bill will be resourced? What resources are necessary, what estimates have been carried out and will the resources be provided?

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank all the Deputies for their contributions and their assurance of support for both the core legislation and the two sets of amendments that we will seek to bring forward next week.

In terms of the process, the amendments on NDAs relating to private records will be printed by the Bills Office tomorrow and will be available for full view. Next Wednesday we will have the opportunity to discuss them in full detail on Committee and Remaining Stages

A number of Deputies raised the issue of the scope of the right to seek a deferral of maternity leave. Of course, the Leave our Leave campaign was originally focused on the issue of women who had a cancer diagnosis during maternity leave. They number between 60 and 70 women per year. It is a small number but, obviously, for those women, it has an absolutely enormous impact. However, in designing this legislation, we did not want to solely reserve the provision to women who had cancer; we wanted to include the issue of serious illness. For me, it was important that serious illness included mental illnesses as well because too often mental illnesses have been put to the side and maybe not given the same degree of seriousness or prominence as physical health issues. Mental health issues, defined by a inpatient stay, are protected within this legislation and are a basis for maternity leave being deferred. I have taken account of the issue that IBEC raised and we are working with officials to see what can be done in terms of the discrimination concern that it has there. We will work to see if there can be an answer or resolution brought to that particular point.

Deputy Whitmore, when she was in the Chamber, raised the issue of the process, in particular, where a woman is seeking deferral of her maternity leave and wants to defer it further, whether there can be changes. There can be changes. The return date can be changed once during the period. Someone can decide to extend her deferral to the full 52 weeks or for a longer period than she originally agreed and that is provided for within the legislation. There is flexibility there. That is valuable and important.

In terms of the approach to the private records, the legislation will allow for the Director of the National Archives to make a request to a holder of private records to provide a catalogue of the records that private holder has.

They have a three-month period within which to provide that catalogue. There is a provision for an extension for that period as well. If someone refuses to provide a catalogue of records, that is an offence under the legislation, as is damaging, falsifying or bringing those records out of the country. That is also an offence. It is the traditional offence, I think of six months' imprisonment on indictment or, in the fuller sense, up to three years' imprisonment or a fine of €50,000, or both. It is the usual criminal offences provided for in those situations. There are not compulsion powers under this legislation. We discussed it yesterday with some of the academics. There is recognition that in the context of the national centre for research and remembrance, there will need to be further legislation about the ownership of records. That is recognised as one that will entail a balancing of constitutional and GDPR rights. I certainly believe the State should be taking ownership of a large proportion of records but what we are seeking to do today is protect what is there, to make sure records that do exist are protected and everyone is very clear about the consequences of efforts, deliberately or inadvertently, to damage, falsify or interfere with those particular records. We are making that change to the law on an interim and rapid basis to make sure that protection exists.

It is worth saying, though, that there have been consequences to similar legislation in Northern Ireland and since similar protection provisions, not compulsion of handing over but simply protection provisions, were put in place in Northern Ireland, thousands of pieces of records in private hands have been handed over to the State. We would be hopeful that this new obligation that is placed on private record holders will prompt them to hand information over to the State, even in advance of subsequent legislation that may require compulsion. There is provision under the National Archives Act for the National Archives to take receipt of documentation that is handed over to it. Indeed, under the birth information and tracing legislation, there are some powers in place in terms of protection of the destruction of records and the birth information and tracing legislation has prompted private record holders. There is one particular set of private records that has been handed over to the Adoption Authority of Ireland. That is now in its safekeeping. The legislation we have already passed is having an impact on private records. I believe this legislation will have an impact on private records. There will be a discussion, potentially in the next Dáil, on wider measures about the ownership and indeed the potential eventual seizing of some private records.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you mentioned the collaborative forum report not being published. It was published in full in November 2022. I might ask my office to send you over the copy.

To conclude, I want to say that this legislation is importance. Its importance is demonstrated by the speed at which we are hoping to bring it through the Houses of the Oireachtas. I appreciate the forbearance and support of Deputies and Senators in doing so. In the last four and a half years, I have brought significant legislative items through this House, on which we have had lengthy debates in pre-legislative scrutiny and on Committee and Report Stages. Members will agree on the importance of ensuring we have a legislative provision that allows women who become seriously ill during their maternity leave to defer it. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle spoke about the long period over which there have been attempts to legislate for maternity leave for Oireachtas Members. It will be good when we leave this Dáil to feel that we finally achieved that, and delivered on this key entitlement to female Members of these Houses that they can avail of maternity leave. There is the work we are bringing forward on NDAs and restricting their use in circumstances where someone has been harassed, bullied, sexually harassed or has been the victim of discrimination within their workplace, and finally the piece on private records to make absolutely sure we can protect them wherever they are and seek an understanding of the scope of these records. These are all important steps that are worthy of the truncated legislative process we are bringing through. I thank Deputies for their support on these measures.