Victor Boyhan backs civil group to amend Institutional Burials Act

Thank you. Well firstly I want to welcome the Minister of the House. It's great to see you here Minister and thank you for coming and giving this matter the attention that it deserves. I want to acknowledge the civil engagement group for their proposal. It's one that I support and I support it on the basis that they have made a strong case in terms of very well made here by their senators in relation to the restrictive nature of the Institutional Burials Act of 2022. I think at the very outset I want to just remember for a moment Catherine Corliss and the absolute fierce objections that she had when she unveiled the information that she had found and that she endeavoured to do and the frustration along that process. I visited her twice, I walked the site twice, you could not be moved by the compelling story and the evidence that she had uncovered. I also am familiar indeed with people who resided at Bespr, who both had a tragic life there. Many of them are involved in various aspects of political life, you may not know it but there are some of them here working in the Oireachtas. There are other areas and fields in public life too and that doesn't make really that much difference other than they have commented on and many of them have written extensively on their experiences or that of their families there. You and I, most of us will know that the planning issues around Bespr, indeed you, Greenfield representative and senator yourself, would be very familiar with the Bespr story. Indeed Micheál Martin Taoiseach from that part of the world took an exceptionally interesting and proactive response. But we know what the developers wanted to do there. We know what was proposed to interfere with that site and we know the sensitivities of that site and at the end of the day a certain amount of common sense prevailed and the public opinion mattered because they had to crank it up. So there is a site there with issues still overhanging it. So clearly there is issues around children in care. I think I shared with this house before and I don't want to go into too much detail other than to say that I received a visit here from a woman who had information and logs in relation to burials of children, some of them in current cemeteries within Dublin, private cemeteries, but there was no recollection other than the evidence and the records that were presented to me. I immediately informed then Minister Catherine Sapone. I discussed it with her. I formally lodged those papers with the appropriate authorities because I think that was important because we all know with many people in institutions, be it ourselves, we want to know their history, where they came from, where they belonged and it may just be a question of linking up some dots in relation to it and one of the clearest things in the logs that we had was that many of these children died very young but there were there were a number of children that died early later on. We'll know from the 1911 census of course where anyone has taken the time and I have because of an interest in this these issues is to see the amount of children that have come out of institutions because we know what the institutions are and of course we know that a lot of children died there. So I think it's too easy to say that everyone was weak and sickly and there has to be an answer. There has to be questions asked for any child that was in care that disappeared, was either illegally buried or put in a place in ever. I spoke with a woman who was 80 years of age from Galway and again I shared this with the House before who told me she lost a child with nearly full term and when asked by the nuns in County Galway that she'd like one opportunity to hold it. This was a woman at 80 years of age that had never told her children this story but it told me she was said don't be ridiculous that's burnt it was a Sunday that's being burnt and sent down the wheelbarrow to the gardener and it took a woman 80 years to be able to say to me which was effectively a stranger to share her grief and her concern. So it is a sensitive issue and I appreciate you know that minister we all know that too but I think I just want to concentrate on something I think the process is a pity how this has been handled and it's indicative of government in relation to how they treat the opposition in this house and I'm here over 10 years now and certainly in the last two coalition governments we've had a situation where there's a log believe it or not for those who are interested in these things there's actually a log of all the legislation everything has been blocked it's not constructive parliamentary democracy and I don't like to say that but you know coalition governments with big majorities actually impact on parliamentary democracy and we see it all the time and can I suggest minister to you why a simple a simple proposal and a bill here which is a definition four sections very simple it's four sections the definition the amendment which is this seeks to do to amend section two of the principle act and also to amend section seven of the principle act and then it's the short title and the collective citation the construction and commencement it's not it's not a lot to deal with and I'm disappointed that it didn't go and it'd be very sad here tonight that if we block democracy parliamentary debate parliamentary engagement that's all important and it only should undervalue that or understate that and what's going to happen here tonight as I understand and I'm open to correction that the government has put this amendment it'll be put at the end of the debate after you speak minister and and things are put through it'll put to a base if the government's amendment is passed the CG bill will be removed from the order paper it will be at least six months before a similar bill can be introduced it will not not be possible to restore the original bill to the order paper and I suppose what I'm going to ask minister and you might you might if you if you think it's appropriate address this in your response here tonight did the government consider proposing that the bill should be read a second time shall we say in six months or 12 months but to come in and just say no we're not doing anything uh we're guillotine this we're cutting this dead I think it's disappointment and I think it's a sad day for democracy parliamentary democracy and you know is this yet to be another issue and I finish on this is this to be another issue that has just been curtailed and finished I think what this bill and my understanding and that's why I'm supporting it is is to acknowledge that there were restrictions in the previous uh the bill that's the ledger the act that's currently in place I think it's a reasonable measure but at a minimum I would expect and I would ask that we would have parliamentary engagement parliamentary dialogue parliamentary debate and ultimately make a decision at the end of the day thank you i'd like to welcome the um the ph pierce coming and their guests of deputy malcolm byrne and i presume you're from wexford you're very welcome enjoy your visit here this evening uh sianador apologies sorry minister and uh i'm very pleased to have the opportunity to to address you here and indeed i welcome all those that are in uh the public gallery um i know uh senator morfeo mahoney has moved uh amendment number one which is to delete all words after that and substitute the following shanadair and declines to give a second reading to the institutional burials uh amendment bill 2022 for the following reasons and so senator bowen it is actually a reasoned amendment so i i am taking the opportunity to explain and give our reasons as to why we're taking this particular point of view and i think that's important it's not a simple no it's not a hard no it's a reasoned uh approach that we're taking here to explain the difference of opinion that we have and what's being proposed so our reasons include it would create an unclear basis for an intervention by providing for circumstances where burials are reasonably likely to have taken place and for evidence of such burials to include missing burial records records that indicate an unusually high death rate at an institution and records which indicate the presence of manifestly inappropriate burial sites secondly in this regard it is noted that the institutional burials act 2022 is very wide-ranging in its definition of institutions and already allows for interventions where evidence and records indicate the presence of manifestly inappropriate burials importantly it should also be noted there was no legal obligation and private burial grounds to keep a register of burials and that high mortality rates could sadly sometimes be a feature of historical congregated settings it would therefore provide for speculative interventions as opposed to evidential interventions as under the president act at numerous large sites this could not be considered proportionate or in the public interest particularly where manifestly inappropriate burials have not been identified the amendment bill requires the consensus of family members by providing for presumed relatives to indicate that the making of an order is their preference whilst engagement with families is paramount and is provided for in the existing international burials act of 22 we know that this is a deeply sensitive and personal issue as indeed has been referenced by so many speakers here and so it is difficult to see how consensus across all families could be achieved as there is presently and understandably a significant divergent of opinions i would like to thank you all for the opportunities i've said at the outset to speak today and respond to the legislation to amend the institutional burials act 22 that has been put forward by senator rowan and her colleagues at the outset i would particularly like to acknowledge the work that the senators have done in supporting and highlighting important issues of concern to survivors and former residents of institutions as well as their family members as well as their family members the legacy of ireland's institutional path is a deeply sad one that has a real and lasting impact one of the most tragic aspects is the continuing uncertainty regarding the burial places of many children who died whilst they were resident in institutions i would like to thank senators thank senators roan and higgins for meeting with me earlier this week to discuss their amendment bill and i absolutely accept their motivation in bringing it forward and i hope the senators can also accept my bona fides in declining a second reading of the bill the bill and let me explain the reasons behind the government's decision the commission of investigation into mother and baby homes was established in 2015 to investigate and report on a range of issues associated with mother and baby institutions including burial practices it had wide-ranging powers and conducted very extensive inquiries searches and test excavations at institutional sites in an effort to locate the burial places of children through this work the commission was able to confirm the presence of children's remains at the site of the site of the former institution in tomb that were interred in a repugnant manner despite extensive efforts the commission was unable to identify a burial location at best burgh and did not identify similarly abhorrent burials at the other institutions that investigated and i will elaborate on this point later in response to the situation in tune the government decided that forensic standard of excavation recovery identification and respectful re-interment of the remains should be carried out to afford dignity to the children who have been denied it for so long the government was advised that there was no legal basis to implement its decision and so the institutional burials act was developed to address the specific legislative gap the reason that the act is not specific to tune is to avoid the need for additional new legislation if similarly abhorrent burials were to be discovered in the future i understand that the amendment bill was drafted in good faith and i absolutely want to acknowledge that however i have a number of concerns regarding its provisions as it would fundamentally change the purpose and the scope of the 2022 act the bill would provide for speculative as opposed to evidential interventions at sites including at sites that have already been subject to extensive investigations by the commission it would require consensus from relatives in relation to an intervention being undertaken where we are aware there are very differing views for differing reasons among family members about how particular sites should be treated and it would remove the power of the government to not intervene where there are substantive reasons why memorialization of a site would be more appropriate for example again i point out that in some instances for some family members memorialization is their preferred option excavation and recovery of remains is an extensive complex and sensitive intervention in making a decision to direct the establishment of an office of the director of authorized intervention the government has to be able to balance the need to intervene with the need to respect the sanctity of burials and consider the overall public interest an amendment to provide for speculative interventions at sites where manifestly inappropriate burials have not been identified even following investigation by a commission of inquiry raises potential legal and constitutional issues in relation to proportionality and public necessity as well as property rights a particular concern is the amendment bills provision for intervention at sites where burials are quote reasonably likely to have taken place on quote as distinct from the current approach where government must be satisfied that burials have taken place related to this point the amendment bill provides for evidence of such burials to include missing burial records and records that indicate an unusually high death rate at an institution as has been referenced we do know from the commission's report that high rates of infant and child mortality were a marked feature of the institutions that investigated one reason for this was the difficulty of controlling the spread of infection in such historical congregated settings the report also finds that whilst public burial grounds such as tomb were subject to statutory regulation and central government oversight statutory regulations did not apply to private burial grounds such as bespora and there was no obligation on them to keep a register of burials it is therefore possible that government through this legislative amendment will be asked to establish numerous independent bodies to excavate to excavate numerous large sites across the country without clear evidence of the burials or manifestly inappropriate burials relevant here is the very broad definition of institution in the 22 act it is not restricted to mother and baby institutions but applies to all residential facilities for adults or children or both where a public body had or has a role the scale of potential excavations could not be considered proportionate or in the public interest particularly where manifestly inappropriate burials have not been identified from speaking with the senators i do understand that a particular concern is a perception amongst family members particularly those with links to bespora that the fact that the location of their relatives burial is unknown is not is unknown is not acknowledged is manifestly inappropriate through the definition of the 2022 act there is no suggestion that because something doesn't meet the evidential standard for full forensic excavation under the 22 act that it should not that it should therefore be considered appropriate so let me be clear the fact that those that ran an institution do not know where the children who died in that institution are buried is not just inappropriate it is completely and utterly unacceptable the commission tried to establish where the bespora children were buried it carried out assessments and a survey put out a public call for information and spoke to people with information about burials but was unable to find any evidence of burials of children who died there in the grounds as no evidence of locations were found the commission did not consider it feasible to excavate such a large site significant parts of which we must now acknowledge have now been built over the senators also raised the issue of burials at the former institution in sean ross in this regard the commission used its powers to conduct a forensic archaeological investigation of the burial ground at the site it did this in response to information that it had received that the graveyard when when still in use had drainage works inserted uh through it and that based on this assertion there may be no remains at the site and it may never have been used as a graveyard site surveys reviews the planning files and independent drain inspection was followed by a forensic standard test excavation with multiple trenches opened in areas across the site where anomalies were identified by the surveys the investigation found that coffined infant burials were located across the designated burial ground and had not been impacted by drainage works the commission concluded that no further investigation was warranted the report of the investigation was published in full in the commission's final report with the survey and drain inspection reports included as appendices i understand from the senators too that there may be a perception among family members that because of the criteria in the act the door is now closed to them i want to say here and now that that is not so following publication of the commission's report my predecessor engaged with the local group in sean ross and provided funding for them to conduct a survey of land beside the institution's burial ground land that was not investigated by the commission i'm similarly open to engaging in relation to proposals for funding for additional surveys at the sites of former institutions as part of the annual estimates process the senators also raised the importance of memorialization of known or presumed burial grounds in our meeting this week government has already committed to local memorialization through the measures set out in its action plan for survivors and former residents i am very conscious of the importance of advancing the commitments in this area and i have asked officials to work with the department of housing heritage and local government and indeed the department of education and youth with a view to bringing forward proposals to support inclusive local memorialization as a priority i do know that the senators will be and are disappointed at the recent amendment on this bill i hope they can accept that the honest and sincere intention is to ensure that the criteria for excavation of remains is proportionate and in the public interest it is not intended as a means of preventing family members from finding answers or memorializing their loved ones i would be happy to work with the senators in progressing the actions i've outlined here today in that regard i'm also open to engaging with family members and committing to advancing survivor-centered local memorialization for the