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

I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 233(2), Standing Order 187 is modified to provide that it be an instruction to the Committee on the Maternity Protection Bill 2024, that it has power to make amendments to the Bill which are outside the scope of the existing subject matter of the Bill, in order to provide for: amendments to the Employment Equality Act 1998, to restrict the use of non-disclosure agreements in cases of discrimination, harassment and sexual harassment;

amendments to ensure 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; and

consequential amendments to the short title and long title to reflect the content of the Bill; and to make other consequential amendments required to take account of the changes above.

As I indicated on Second Stage in this House, the Government is proposing significant amendments to the Bill. These amendments have been published and will be debated tomorrow on Committee Stage in this House. They encompass two significant policy proposals, namely, to amend the Employment Equality Act 1998 to restrict the use of non-disclosure agreements in cases of discrimination, harassment and sexual harassment, and to make amendments to ensure 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. There are important reasons these proposals are being added to the Bill, which I will now set out.

The general scheme of the Bill included provisions related to the regulation of non-disclosure agreements, NDAs. These proposals were considered by the committee during pre-legislative scrutiny and I met the committee as part of that process. As I noted on Second Stage, the public written consultation as part of the review of the equality Acts, on which I published a report last year, invited submissions on non-disclosure agreements. There was significant support from civil society for making amendments that will help to address this issue of the power imbalance between employers and employees, who may feel pressurised to sign an NDA. These proposals build on a previous Private Members' Bill, sponsored by Senators Ruane, Flynn, Black and Higgins, which has passed all Stages in Seanad Éireann. I know that Deputies support the aims of that Private Members' Bill. It is important that these proposals be advanced with this Bill as intended and as I have indicated from the outset.

The Government has also agreed to bring forward legislation that 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 that support an understanding of their identity and the institutional systems that shaped their life experiences in such significant ways will be preserved.

Given the urgent requirement for this legislation, I decided the best avenue to progress these proposals as soon as possible was by way of Committee Stage amendment to the Maternity Protection Bill. The addition of these important elements to the Bill also requires amendment to the Short and Long Titles in order that they will accurately reflect the broad scope of the Bill. I very much appreciate Deputies' interest and engagement with the proposals in the Bill and with those I intend to bring forward tomorrow on Committee Stage.

It is crucial we can ensure this Bill passes through the Houses and becomes law as quickly as possible.

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

An bhfuil éinne ag iarraidh teacht isteach?

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

I welcome the engagement by the Minister, and I know he engaged with Senators, particularly regarding the NDAs and the amendments that will brought forward accordingly. I welcome that. That engagement was important. The second change that is being brought in, related to the private records and ensuring that they are protected, preserved and that no harm comes to them, is obviously an important amendment. It is something that has been highlighted. Again, I commend the Minister, having engaged with those who were concerned, for bringing that forward.

I want to go back to an issue both myself and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle raised last week when we discussed this Bill in more detail. Being new in this role, I feel very much obliged to raise this having met so many of the survivors particularly in the last few weeks, and more so given that we are in the dying days of this Dáil. I met and put on the record last week the case of Michael Grant whom I met. He was in Temple Hill. He has not unwell, was not sick and did not need hospital care yet Temple Hill in Blackrock is excluded from the mother and baby institutions payment scheme because it is deemed a hospital. I have no idea why it is deemed a hospital. Seemingly, it was notorious for adoptions to the US. His birth mother had paid a £100 adoption fee and a £5 clothing fee and she paid those fees at 5 shillings a week for four years until his adoption became legal in 1954. How would someone be paying that kind of money to a hospital? It makes no sense. I am not as au fait with the other institutions but for the one that has been brought to my attention more recently, and that just happens to be Temple Hill, there is a serious question mark over its exclusion based on the fact that children were advertised in newspapers, as was Michael Grant, and adopted and sent to America. I cannot explain to Michael Grant why he, as an adoptee, is being treated differently from other survivors. I certainly cannot explain to him why Temple Hill would be deemed a hospital when his birth mother was paying an adoption fee and fees to keep him there, and she paid those fees for four long years. It makes no sense to me at all. I appeal to the Minister in the dying days of this Government that he look at those four institutions that have been excluded. I use Temple Hill as an example because, as I said, I met with Michael Grant and his daughter last week. The Minister may perhaps explain the hospital element because I do not understand it.

Lastly, I refer to the underspend of €158 million in this scheme. We know applications have been slow and maybe that is understandable because it is only open since March. More people will apply and that is good and well and fine. However, that is a lot of money. The €100 million being brought forward for next year, unless the applications rise significantly next year, will not be spent. I do not believe it will be spent. That gives us now an opportunity to look at those excluded. Again, I use Temple Hill as an example but I cannot understand how a building from which babies were adopted for money via advertisements can be deemed a hospital. I do not understand that and I do not believe it is correct. I do not care what kind of a building they were in, if they were adopted via an advertisement in a newspaper, all survivors are more than entitled to access that recognition and respect, which is basically what the payment scheme is. It is not about the money. It was never about the money for any of these people. As I said, being new in this role I would not have met many survivors before coming into it and I feel obliged to raise that. There is money there. In the remaining days and weeks of this Dáil, it should at least be said this will be looked at again. The money is there and the cases are there. It would mean a lot to the survivors if it were said this evening that it would be looked at. That is all; just that it will be looked at. What I have heard from the likes of Michael Grant regarding what was deemed a hospital does not make sense. Perhaps the Minister can rationalise and explain that; I certainly cannot. Before this Dáil finishes, will the Minister consider these four institutions and see is there any way around this, given the level of money that is there and that will not be spent? Of the €100 million allocated for next year, is it not better to use that money to give to the survivors rather than have perhaps another underspend next year? I make that ask to the Minister here this evening.

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

An bhfuil éinne eile ag iarraidh teacht isteach? Níl. The Minister to conclude.

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

I thank Deputy Kerrane for her contribution. We will have the opportunity to discuss the provisions of the Bill in depth tomorrow, in respect of the original two proposals which are, as we know, to introduce a right for women to defer maternity leave for up to a year if they become ill during their maternity leave and allow them recover for the particular serious illness they are facing but also allow them to enjoy the full benefit of their maternity leave. Second, it will provide for maternity leave for Oireachtas Members for the first time. It will also deal with the issues of non-disclosure agreements, putting tighter restrictions around their use in situations where there is harassment or sexual harassment and finally, cater for the preservation of private records.

In the context of the points made by Deputy Kerrane, under the mother and baby institutions payment scheme legislation there is a provision for a review after one year. That is quite a fulsome review looking at the levels of applications and of drawdowns and the reasons why people were refused. After that review is probably the best position from which to make a judgment as regards ambit. Deputy Kerrane made the point that in the seven months of the scheme there is a lower uptake than we expected. That is the case. It is still significant in that over 5,000 people have applied, over 1,500 people have received payments, €28 million has already been provided in direct payments and over 700 enhanced medical cards have been issued already under the scheme. Examining the issue at the point of the year review, which would be early in the new year, allowing that review to take place and looking at it then, gives us a more comprehensive understanding of the first year of the scheme and allows decisions to be made subsequently. I commend this motion to the House.