I welcome the Minister, my fellow Kerry person, to the House. The proposer and seconder of the motion for a Second Reading will speak for 16 minutes and all other Senators for six minutes. The Minister can reply at any time and then the proposer will complete the debate.

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

I second the motion.

I will share time, roughly eight minutes each.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I begin my contribution on this Bill by recognising the ongoing work at Tuam, the careful, painstaking, deeply sensitive work that is unfolding there. It is difficult but necessary work which asks something of us all. A Zora Neale Hurston quote came to mind this week for me, "There are years that ask questions and years that answer". Survivors, family members and society more broadly have asked their questions and it is beyond time for us to fully answer them. How does a country that is still living its history, not studying it from a distance, find the courage to face what lies beneath its soil and within its people? How do we continue to hold the gravity and depravity of what happened in this country, not as something abstract but as something that has shaped real lives? It is with this in mind that we table this Bill today. It is a response to the gaps that we know exist within the Institutional Burials Act and seeks to recognise the undignified burials of thousands of children on institutional lands in Ireland.

Some 9,000 children are known to have died in mother and baby homes and county homes between 1922 and 1988. The infant mortality rates in these homes were double the national rate, highlighting the extent of the abuse and neglect that occurred there. A total of 1,090 infants died at Sean Ross Abbey but burial records exist for only 259 of them. At Bessborough in Cork, where the infant mortality rate was as high as 75% in the early 1940s, 923 infants died, with burials documented in just 64 cases. This discrepancy between death and burial records is itself a cause for concern and given what we know about the extent of the undignified burials that took place at Tuam, it is not speculative to suggest that manifestly inappropriate burials likely took place on other institutional lands at an equivalent scale. After all, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I have thought a lot about social memory lately and what it means in the absence of identification, examination and memorialisation of those who are buried on institutional lands. I am reminded that I have always believed that memory lives within us, not only in our constructed memories of events but in collective memory, something that links our past, present and future selves together, telling us who we are. I once read of memory as a series of storehouses and when I think of the thousands of people across Ireland who carry their own private storehouses of memory and I think of the literal storehouses under the ground in places like Tuam, Bessborough, Sean Ross Abbey and others, I cannot help but see the painful symmetry between what is buried beneath the soil and what is buried beneath the living. Storehouses within storehouses within storehouses, and within those storehouses lies a truth and that truth exists whether we acknowledge or deny it. It calls on us as a society to make it present, not only as a private grief but as a shared memory. It calls on us to create spaces where truth can be received with care, where the past can be inherited with justice and where dignity can be restored. What was taken in death can be recognised in memory but this is not simply about memory. It is about rights, obligations and what sort of State we choose to be.

A human rights framework demands that we understand burial sites not as historical curiosities nor as administrative matters to be managed but as physical manifestations of violations of fundamental rights, where individuals died in circumstances of abuse, neglect, abandonment or enforced disappearance. The State's responsibility did not end with their deaths. It did not end at the moment of burial. It continues through the duties of investigating, identifying, preserving, acknowledging, memorialising and providing redress.

When burial locations remain unknown, when records are destroyed or incomplete and when graves are unmarked or concealed, the violation does not rest quietly in the past – it persists. Families are left without certainty. They are left without a place to stand in their grief and without a site to mark or a place to lay their prayer. The right to truth and to know what happened, where a loved one lies and how they were treated is not merely symbolic; it is inalienable. It applies not only to the families but to society as a whole.

Excavation must be approached with great sensitivity and care. That is why in our Bill we did not place a mandate on the State to intervene. The preference for the majority of families will likely be to know with greater certainty the final resting place of their loved ones. We can achieve this without full excavation and we argue the State should work proactively to provide this. This is especially urgent on lands where development is planned.

Human dignity does not end at death. International standards are clear. The dead must be treated with respect, graves must be protected and preserved and burials must be individual where possible. Remains must not be desecrated or disregarded. Dignified burial is not an optional gesture of compassion; it is part of fair and equal treatment in death. It is part of restoring honour where it was denied. It is part of ensuring no one is left behind, not in life and not in death.

The State carries an obligation to investigate suspicious or unlawful deaths, which includes searching for and identifying remains where possible and when warranted. Where burial records are missing, where remains may have been uncoffined and where burial practices may have been inappropriate, further forensic examination is a fulfilment of duty. Delay in action and hesitation prolong suffering and undermine the right to an effective remedy. They allow uncertainty to cement into injustice or for cement to be laid over burial grounds due to legislative gaps and for them to remain unnamed and unmarked.

A rights-based approach is not about legal duties but about participation. It requires that families and affected communities are not onlookers to decisions made about their own histories. They must be consulted and informed. They must be heard. Decisions about investigation, excavation, preservation and memorialisation must reflect the voices of those most directly impacted. In doing so we honour not only the dead but the living who carry them in memory. Memorialisation is not an afterthought; it is part of the process of reparation. It is part of a guarantee that what happened will not be erased from memory, distorted or repeated. When we preserve burial sites, mark them in a dignified manner and provide spaces for remembrance, we do more than mourn. We make accountability visible. We allow society to confront itself honestly, openly and with full, radical acceptance of its darkest parts and the darkest parts of us.

Taken together, the human rights framework makes something very clear: the location of remains, the provision of dignified burial, preservation and memorialisation are not optional policy choices but legal and moral obligations. They are actions grounded in dignity, truth, equality and participation in justice, and in preventing reoccurrence. This is not only about what lies beneath the soil but about what lives within us as a people. It is about whether we are prepared to make space politically, legally and socially for truth to stand in open air. It is about whether we are finally willing to inherit our past with care, courage and the justice it demands.

To begin, I will explain a couple of things we were trying to do with this Bill. When the Institutional Burials Act 2022 was being passed, there were concerns that the language was framed so narrowly that, in effect, it would really only relate to Tuam. Other institutions were allowed to be included, but the terms, descriptions and definitions were almost designed to exclude certain well-known cases of great institutional abuse. The debates at the time related to some of the phrases our Bill seeks to address. Some of the problems, regardless of what the Government chooses to do with to our Bill, will remain unaddressed in the principal Act. There were concerns about how "principal burial land" was framed. It was a very narrow definition . We will come to Bessborough in a minute, but to have a tiny nominal graveyard when there are 900 or more dead children and to say that is the principal burial ground is a concern. We looked very simply to facilitate making an order where "there is reasonable evidence" pointing to a likelihood that inappropriate burials took place on a site.

In the incredibly unusual situation of Tuam, the horrendously inappropriate location had already been fully identified. This Bill would allow action where the precise burial ground was not known but where it was known to be in a specific and likely area. Crucially, it widens what we mean by "manifestly inappropriate". The terms were very narrowly constrained in the principal Act. There are other grounds that should be considered in terms of "manifestly inappropriate", including where records indicate extraordinarily high death rates at institutions and a lack of proper death or burial records, or other indications of extremely inappropriate action.

I could list all the categories in the Bill but the key point is the Bill is being killed in a novel way today. It is being done by means of a reasoned amendment. Effectively, the Government will avoid voting against the Bill but will vote for an amendment to say, "Let's be against the Bill". A number of options were open to the Government. It could have said it had concerns about aspects of the Bill and wanted us to fix them. If the Government really thought the Bill needed time, it could have come in with one of the infamous timed amendments on it. It could have recognised the concerns, recognised the many people whose loved ones are buried in highly inappropriate situations and who died in circumstances that were inappropriate but who do not fit the narrow definitions of "manifestly inappropriate" in the principal Act, and said maybe we need to look at doing something about that. The Government could have told us how it was planning to address the issues arising from it. We waited for four years. We introduced the Bill in 2022 but we waited to see how it would pan out. Maybe, as we were told, other investigations would take place and it would not just be Tuam. It has just been Tuam.

A number of other issues have arisen, which we may come to. There is the narrow scope in terms of DNA. Only a fragment of those who may have loved ones in Tuam are even allowed to volunteer their DNA and check it. That is another consequence. The State should be willing to learn and improve as it goes on and to come up with something different.

I will give a minute to a couple of the reasoned arguments the Government has given for declining to give the Bill a Second Reading. It is concerned about the inclusion of "reasonably likely to have taken place", even though in relation to Bessborough we have "very likely". Would "very likely" be acceptable? Burials are "very likely" to have taken place in Bessborough. That is what the commission on mother and baby homes found. The Government also suggests there would be speculative interventions as opposed to evidential interventions. We explicitly refer to "reasonable evidence". Is the Government saying we have to have fully proved the case and every single site has to have a Catherine Corless who does all the work and uncovers all the facts, and that we have to drag the State forward in every instance?

Crucially, the Government states regarding concern about manifestly inappropriate burials that it should be noted there was no legal obligation on private burial grounds to keep a register of burials. That is fine, then. We tried to address this problem when the Act was going through the House. The amendment also states: "high mortality rates could sadly sometimes be a feature of historical congregated settings". It was not okay at the time because there were problems. We can quote the Acts, such as the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1874, which states any person who performs a funeral or religious service or burial of any dead body in relation to which no certificate is delivered should give notice to the registrar. There were already significant requirements at the time. It was not much of a free-for-all.

Let us remind ourselves of the figures from Bessborough. A total of 923 children had died at one point and in 1943, three out of every four babies died. That is 75% of babies dying. Of the 923, 107 were not properly reported to the authorities and the commission was only able to identify the locations of 64 burial sites for these children. Tell me this is not inappropriate. Tell those who have spoken about the litany of exclusions. To be clear, the State has excluded those receiving an apology today from the residential redress Act. It has excluded those who would not relinquish control over their own stories with a gagging order under section 28. There are exclusions in terms of who received redress under the mother and baby homes scheme. There are exclusions around whose suffering is recognised. Now we have further exclusions regarding which deaths and burials might be recognised as being manifestly inappropriate and an unwillingness from the Government to even engage in this discussion. Perhaps this is because those who were buried, unlike those who were abused in other ways, will not be able to continue a campaign in the same way for further apologies again and again without action. This is part of a litany of exclusion and it is another sign of a State unwilling to engage, learn and constructively and genuinely build a future in which we can be proud of our State.

I welcome Senator McCarthy who has with him Victoria Mary Clarke, Rosa Clarke, Kate O’Toole, Councillor Gaye Ralph, Anne Lane and Winnifred Burke. They are here to celebrate International Women's Day in advance. They are very welcome and I hope they enjoy their visit to Leinster House.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “That” and substitute the following:

“Seanad Éireann declines to give the Bill a second reading for the following reasons:

- 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;

- 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. It should also be noted that there was no legal obligation on 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 present 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 Bill requires the consensus of family members by providing for presumed relatives to indicate that the making of an order is their preference. While engagement with families is paramount and is provided for in the existing Institutional Burials Act 2022, it is a deeply sensitive and personal issue and it is difficult to see how consensus across all families could be achieved as there is presently, and understandably, a significant divergence of opinions.”

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. The Bill seeks to amend the Institutional Burials Act 2022 and the amendments proposed would fundamentally change the purpose and scope of that Act. For this reason Fianna Fáil will oppose the Bill on Second Stage.

The Institutional Burials Act provides the legal basis for the State to intervene where people who died in residential institutions were buried in a manifestly inappropriate manner, allowing for their recovery, analysis, identification where possible and respectful re-internment. Crucially, the Act requires that the Government must have evidence that such burials have taken place before appointing a Director of Authorised Intervention. This evidence-based threshold is essential given the sensitive nature of disturbing human remains.

Under the legislation, the Government directed the establishment of an independent office to undertake a full forensic excavation at the site of the former mother and baby institution in Tuam. Work began in summer 2025 and the excavation is expected to take up to two years. This shows the 2022 Act functioning exactly as intended, with targeted intervention where clear evidence justifies it. The Government's broader response to the legacy of mother and baby institutions is set out in the action plan for survivors and former residents and further work on local memorialisation is being progressed by a dedicated working group under the Minister for housing.

The amendments before us would alter the core architecture of the 2022 Act. Instead of requiring evidence of manifestly inappropriate burials, the Bill would allow intervention where such burials are simply reasonably likely to have taken place. This could be based on missing burial records, high death rates or incomplete documentation. We know from the commission of investigation that high infant and child mortality was tragically common in historical institutions, often due to infection and the conditions of the time. We also know that many private burial grounds were never legally required to maintain burial registers. If missing records or high mortality alone became triggers for excavation, the State would face calls to excavate numerous large sites nationwide.

The 2022 Act includes a very broad definition of "institution", including former residential settings far beyond mother and baby homes, and mental health facilities and prisons. Lowering the threshold for excavation would result in interventions on a scale that is neither proportionate nor in the public interest, particularly where manifestly inappropriate burials have not been identified. Excavation is not only complex and intrusive but also deeply sensitive. The cost implications would be significant but, more importantly, these amendments raise legal and constitutional concerns. Allowing speculative intervention would undermine fundamental tests of proportionality, public necessity and property rights. The Bill also proposes that presumed relatives must indicate that making an order is their preference. While engagement with families is vital, we know that survivors and families hold different views on excavation versus memorialisation. The idea of achieving consensus across all families is unrealistic and risks frustrating necessarily intervention.

Furthermore, the Bill removes the Government's ability to refuse an order where memorialisation is the more appropriate course of action. This discretion is an important safeguard. It allows the Government to weigh the importance of burials, the unique circumstances of each site and the diverging wishes of families. The 2022 Act sets out clear, robust criteria for determining whether burials were manifestly inappropriate and whether they were not coffined contrary to burial regulations, lacking dignity or collective in a manner against common decency. The standards provide clarity, legal certainty and public confidence. Diluting them would undermine the careful balance of the Act.

Work on memorialisation continues to advance. The working group's forthcoming report will provide guidelines on how local authorities should engage with survivors and communities at an appropriate local level. Local authorities have also been asked to protect unrecorded burial sites throughout their development plans. These are the right mechanisms for sites where excavation is not warranted. The Institutional Burials Act was crafted with sensitivity, survivors' engagement and careful legal consideration. It provides an evidence-based proportionate framework for intervention that respects the dignity of the deceased and the complexity of Ireland's institutional past.

The Bill before us would create uncertainty, lower the threshold for intrusive action and open the door to broad speculative interventions across the country. It would remove necessary safeguards and introduce requirements that are impractical and potentially divisive. For these reasons we cannot support the Bill on Second Stage. I endorse the reasoned amendment that Seanad Éireann should decline to give the Bill a Second Reading.

The Minister is welcome. This Bill deals with a deeply sensitive and painful part of our history and it is important that we approach it with care, respect and balance. The Institutional Burials Act 2022 was designed to allow the State to step in where there is clear evidence of inappropriate burials, while also respecting the dignity of those who are buried and the wishes of their families. This proposed amending legislation would significantly lower the threshold for intervention. It would allow excavations where burials are only thought to be likely, for example where records are missing or death rates were high. While these are serious concerns, they do not always mean that inappropriate burials actually took place. There is a genuine risk that we will move from clear, evidence-based decisions to more speculative ones, which could lead to large-scale excavations at many sites without certainty that intervention is needed.

The Bill requires agreement among family members before any action can be taken. While involving families is essential, we know that views can differ greatly. Requiring full agreement may make it very difficult to act in any way at all. As my colleague has mentioned, the Bill removes the option for the Government to choose memorialisation instead of excavation in certain cases. That flexibility is important, particularly where families may prefer remembrance over disturbance.

For these reasons, I support the Government's amendment. It keeps the focus on careful, evidence-based decisions, respects differing views and ensures that any intervention is appropriate and proportionate.

I welcome the Minister to the House. It is great to see her here. I thank her for coming here to give this matter the attention it deserves.

I acknowledge the Civil Engagement Group for its proposal. It is one I support on the basis that the group has made a strong case here on the restrictive nature of the Institutional Burials Act 2022.

I want to remember for a moment Catherine Corless, the absolutely fierce objections she faced when she unveiled the information she had found in her endeavours, and the frustration she experienced in the process. I visited her twice and walked the site twice. You could not but be moved by the compelling story and the evidence she uncovered.

I am familiar with people who resided in Bessborough and had tragic lives there. Many of them are involved in various aspects of political life. Senators may not know it but there are some of them working here in the Oireachtas. Others are in other areas of public life. Some have commented on, and many have written extensively about, their experiences in Bessborough and those of their families. The planning issues around Bessborough are well known. The Minister, as a Fianna Fáil representative, will be very familiar with the Bessborough story. The Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin, is from the part of the world in question and took an exceptional interest in the story and responded proactively. We know what developers wanted to do there. We know what was proposed to interfere with the site and we know the sensitivities related to it. Ultimately, a certain amount of common sense prevailed and public opinion mattered because it had been cranked up. There are still issues outstanding regarding the site.

Clearly, there are issues around children in care. I think I shared with this House before a story on which I do not want to go into too much detail. I received a visit here from a woman who had information and logs related to burials of children, some of them in existing private cemeteries within Dublin. There was no information other than the evidence and records presented to me. I immediately informed the then Minister, Katherine Zappone, and discussed the matter with her. I formally lodged the papers with the appropriate authorities. That was important because we all know that many people who were institutionalised – it might be ourselves – want to know their history, where they have come from and where they belonged. It may just be a question of linking up some dots. One of the clearest things in the logs was that many of the children in question died very young. A number of them died later. Anyone who takes the time, like I have because I have an interest in these issues, will know from the 1911 census the number of children who came out of institutions, because we know where the institutions were. We also know that many children died in them. It is too easy to say that everyone was weak and sickly. There has to be an answer. Questions have to be asked for any child who was in care and disappeared, and who was either illegally buried or placed somewhere unknown.

I shared with the House before that I once spoke with an 80-year-old woman from Galway who told me she lost a child nearly at full term. When she asked the nuns in County Galway for an opportunity to hold the child - it was a Sunday - she was told not to be ridiculous. They said the remains had been burnt and sent out in the wheelbarrow to the gardener. She was 80 years of age and had never told her children this story. It took her until she was 80 years of age to share her grief and concern with me. I was effectively a stranger. This is a sensitive issue and I appreciate that the Minister knows that. We all know that.

I want to concentrate on the process. It is a pity and it is disappointing how this has been handled. It is indicative of how the Government treats the Opposition and this House. I have been here for over ten years now. Those of us who will be interested in these things will know there is actually a log of the legislation over that period, certainly for the terms of the last two coalition Governments. Everything has been blocked. This is not constructive parliamentary democracy. I do not like to say that. Coalition Governments with big majorities have an impact on parliamentary democracy. We see it all the time. I ask the Minister to explain why this is the case.

This is a simple Bill with a definition and four sections. It seeks to amend sections 2 and 7 of the principal Act. Section 4 relates to the Short Title, collective citation, construction and commencement. It is not a lot to deal with. I am disappointed it is not being accepted. If we block democracy, parliamentary debate and parliamentary engagement, all of which are important, we will be blocking something important and it will be very sad. We should not undervalue or understate that. I am open to correction but I believe what is going to happen tonight is that the Government's amendment will be put at the end of the debate, after the Minister speaks. If the Government's amendment is passed, the Civil Engagement Group's 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 be possible to restore the original Bill to the Order Paper.

I have a question that the Minister might address in her response if she believes it is appropriate. Did the Government consider proposing that the Bill should be deemed to be read a Second Time in six or 12 months? That the Bill is just being guillotined and cut dead is disappointing and a sad day for parliamentary democracy. Is the issue under discussion to be yet another one on which debate is curtailed and ended? I understand that the Bill acknowledges that there are restrictions in the current Act, and that is why I am supporting it. It is a reasonable measure. As a minimum, we should have parliamentary engagement, dialogue and debate and ultimately make a decision.

I welcome the members of the P. H. Pearse cumann, who are guests of Deputy Malcolm Byrne. I presume they are from Wexford. They are very welcome. May they enjoy their visit here this evening.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an tSeanaid as ucht an deis seo a thabhairt dom. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address the House. I welcome all those in the Public Gallery.

I note that Senator Murphy O'Mahony has moved amendment No. 1, which is to delete all words after “That” and substitute text stating Seanad Éireann declines to give a Second Reading to the Institutional Burials (Amendment) Bill 2022 for various reasons listed in the amendment. Senator Boyhan should note it is actually a reasoned amendment. I am taking the opportunity to explain why we are adopting our particular point of view.

That is important. It is not a simple or hard "No"; rather, we are taking a reasoned approach to explain the difference of opinion that we have on what has been proposed.

Our reasons include that 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 that indicate the presence of manifestly inappropriate burial sites. In this regard, it is noted that the Institutional Burials Act is very wide-ranging in its definition of "institution" and already allows for interventions where evidence and records indicate the presence of manifestly inappropriate burials. It should also be noted there was no legal obligation on private burial grounds to keep a register of burials and 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 is the case under the current 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 Bill requires the consensus of family members by providing for presumed relatives to indicate that the making of an order is their preference. While engagement with families is paramount and is provided for in the Institutional Burials Act, we know that this is a deeply sensitive and personal issue, as referenced by many speakers in the debate and, therefore, it is difficult to see how consensus across all families could be achieved as there is presently and understandably a significant divergence of opinions.

I thank Senators for the opportunity to speak today and respond to the Bill to amend the Act tabled by Senator Ruane and her colleagues. I acknowledge the work 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.

The legacy of Ireland’s institutional past 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 while they were resident in institutions. I thank Senators Ruane and Higgins for meeting me earlier this week to discuss their amending Bill. I accept their motivation in bringing it forward and I hope the Senators can accept my bona fides in declining a Second Reading of the Bill. I will explain the reasons behind the Government's decision.

The Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes and Certain Related Matters 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 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 former institution in Tuam that were interred in a repugnant manner. Despite extensive efforts, the commission was unable to identify a burial location at Bessborough and did not identify similarly abhorrent burials at the other institutions it investigated. I will elaborate on this point later.

In response to the situation in Tuam, the Government decided that forensic standard excavation, recovery, identification and respectful reinternment of the remains should be carried out to afford dignity to the children who had been denied it for so long. The Government was advised that there was no legal basis to implement its decision and, therefore, the Institutional Burials Act was developed to address this specific legislative gap. The reason that the Act is not specific to Tuam 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. However, I have a number of concerns regarding its provisions as it would fundamentally change the purpose and 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 regard to an intervention being undertaken where we are aware that there are very differing views, for differing reasons, among family members about how particular sites should be treated. It would remove the power of the Government to not intervene where there are substantive reasons memorialisation of a site would be more appropriate. In some instances, for some family members memorialisation 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 Authorised 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 regard to proportionality and public necessity as well as property rights.

A particular concern is the Bill’s provision for interventions at sites where burials are "reasonably likely to have taken place", as distinct from the current approach where Government must be satisfied that burials have taken place. Related to this point, the 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 as been referenced, we know from the commission’s report that high rates of infant and child mortality were a marked feature of the institutions it investigated. One reason for this was the difficulty of controlling the spread of infection in such historical congregated settings.

The report also found that while public burial grounds, such as Tuam, were subject to statutory regulation and central government oversight, statutory regulations did not apply to private burial grounds such as Bessborough and there was no obligation on them to keep a register of burials. It is, therefore, possible that the Government, through this legislative amendment, will be asked to establish numerous independent bodies to excavate numerous large sites across the country without clear evidence of the burials or manifestly inappropriate burials. Relevant is the very broad definition of "institution" in the 2022 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 to Senators, I understand that a particular concern is a perception among family members, particularly those with links to Bessborough, that the fact that the location of their relative’s burial is unknown is not acknowledged as manifestly inappropriate through the definition in the 2022 Act. There is no suggestion that because something does not meet the evidential standard for full forensic excavation under the Act it should, therefore, be considered appropriate. Let me be clear: the fact that those who 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 Bessborough 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 was found, the commission did not consider it feasible to excavate such a large site, significant parts of which, we must acknowledge, have 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 so in response to information that it had received that the graveyard, when still in use, had drainage works inserted through it and, 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 of planning files and an 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 impact 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 that there may be a perception among family members that because of the criteria in the Act, the door is closed to them. I want to say here and now that is not so. Following publication of the commission’s report, my predecessor engaged with a local group in Sean Ross and provided funding for it to conduct a survey of land beside the institution’s burial ground, land that was not investigated by the commission.

I am 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 memorialisation of known or presumed burial sites in our meeting this week. The Government has already committed to local memorialisation through the measures set out in its action plan for survivors and former residents. I am conscious of the importance of advancing the commitments in this area. I have asked officials to work with the Department of Housing, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Education and Youth with a view to bringing forward proposals to support inclusive local memorialisation as a priority.

I know the Senators will be and are disappointed at the reasoned 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 memorialising their loved ones. I would be happy to work with the Senators in progressing the actions I have outlined here today. In that regard, I am also open to engaging with family members and committing to advancing survivor-centred local memorialisation.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I commend and thank Senators Ruane, Higgins, Flynn and Black on bringing forward this Bill today. The Labour Party fully supports this important legislation.

When the Institutional Burials Act 2022 passed through the Oireachtas four years ago it was a victory for the tireless campaigners, survivors and families of Tuam and other mother and baby homes. The work of people like Catherine Corless, who has rightly been mentioned here many times tonight, uncovered the facts of the burials at Tuam. The Act was a vindication of years of work and a step towards justice. However, it was not perfect. Many of those same campaigners in the years since then have pointed out significant issues with the legislation that was passed four years ago.

The simple aim of this Bill is to make real the promise of justice for survivors and family members of people who died in and are buried in institutional lands. This is why we fully support it. All of us in the House can agree that this is a worthy aim. The 2022 Act sets a high legal threshold for intervention. In practice this means it is extremely difficult to authorise State-led interventions on institutional burial sites other than Tuam. The Minister explained her reason for erasing another amendment. Perhaps as a result of how effective the campaigning of those in Tuam was, the 2022 Act was very much drafted with Tuam at the forefront of their minds. Several of the criteria for intervention included in the 2022 Act are referential to the context of Tuam. The effect of this is that other known or suspected institutional burial sites cannot meet those criteria. Therefore, justice and closure are being denied to survivors and family members from other sites. I do not believe this was the intention of the 2022 Act. It is certainly not in line with the spirit that underpinned that legislation.

This Bill seeks to put that right. It would expand and strengthen the powers granted to the State under the 2022 Act. It would bring other institutional lands into scope for investigation and intervention if inappropriate burials are likely to have occurred there. The core aim here is to make sure the State can intervene appropriately in cases of suspected inappropriate or undocumented burials linked to religious institutions. We already accepted this concept in the 2022 Act. In passing that Act, the Oireachtas accepted the State's role in responding to the legacy issues by intervening in inappropriate burials. While the Bill was in effect largely limited to dealing with the Tuam site, I do not believe a case of justice and closure in Tuam but nowhere else would ever have been acceptable to campaigners, families or indeed legislators. In taking action on this issue and passing the Bill, the intention of this House was that justice would be open to all. This Bill is about making that intention real. That is why I am deeply disappointed to see the Government's amendment today. This should not be a partisan issue. Discretion is very much evident within the Bill. It should be an issue on which all in this House can agree. The Government claims this would lead to speculative interventions. It claims it would create a lack of clarity, would be out of proportion and would not be in the public interest. However, the Government is failing to recognise that the situation now is leading to a lack of clarity and is not proportionate. The situation as it exists now is simply not in the public interest.

The Government seems to be suggesting that by broadening the scope of the 2022 Act, we would open the floodgates to a large number of poorly evidenced interventions. I do not think it is fair that there is such little faith in families and campaigners who have had to fight for so many years to finally get this far. I do not believe the suggestion that allowing for interventions where inappropriate burials are likely to have taken place will lead to a disproportionately large number of actions is true. I think it is insulting. It was only through the sterling investigative work of Catherine Corless that the burials of Tuam ever came to light. Governments, over successive decades, were none the wiser. Now the Government presumes to tell campaigners and families that they cannot be trusted to know where similar events are likely to have taken place.

It is a deeply disappointing amendment and a deeply disappointing stance for the Government to take. As I said, the Labour Party fully supports the Senators in the Civil Engagement Group and of course the tireless campaigners who have kept the spotlight on this issue. I know the Minister is open to discussions. I hope she will reassess her position and back this Bill so that real closure can happen for families.

I thank everyone for their contributions. I will try to give responses to the different contributions of today. There are some on a language theme that I cannot help but be stirred by. We have talked about what is normal and what is not normal, and there was a suggestion that the high mortality rates were ordinary at that time in congregated settings and that they were something to be expected, accepted or understood within a particular timeframe. I want to challenge that to the highest degree. First, to go back a few steps, there were hundreds of women who had never chosen to be there. They never chose to give birth in congregated settings. They never chose to have their children taken from their arms and put in rooms with other babies to be "cared for", then put in graves. The congregated settings were not normal, so the instances of high mortality can never be normal. We are only talking about events in our lifetime. We are only talking about people who are still alive today and who cannot identify the grounds in which the remains of their children lie in Bessborough, Sean Ross Abbey and many more. It is not normal.

Bessborough was temporarily closed in 1946. In 1944, the Cork county manager and the South Cork Board of Public Assistance made the then Department of Local Government and Public Health aware of the high infant mortality rate in Bessborough but it chose to take no concrete steps. How was it normal if, in the forties, the county manager was saying there was something wrong here and that there was a high infant mortality rate? We cannot rewrite and reconstruct memory. We cannot reconstruct a memory and place it on something that happened in the past and say it was normal, because the records say different. That is not okay in any shape or form.

In relation to private burial grounds, there have been many mentions here today of the idea there was no need to keep records of certain burial grounds. I wish to go back to 1888 and the rules and regulations of burial grounds in the late 1800s:

A proper registry book (hereinafter referred to as the registry book), made of parchment, or vellum, or other durable material with strong bindings and suitable printed pagings, and ruled in columns with proper printed headings, shall be constantly kept in some convenient place at or near the burial ground, and shall be open for inspection at all reasonable times; but no person except the person having the care and management of the burial ground and in these rules called the registrar, shall be permitted to write in the registry book save as hereinafter mentioned.

That is from the conditions on keeping records from the late 1800s.

If I had a child in the ground and I could not identify where they were, try telling me that is not manifestly inappropriate. If any of the Senators here today had a Bill with a definition that said something only needs further investigation if it reaches this threshold of manifestly inappropriate, and if they had spent decades searching and asking where their child was buried and nobody could tell them where on that land that child was buried, tell me that is not manifestly inappropriate, but our legislation said it is. Our amendments only enable the Government to increase its level of investigation. It does not demand it. It does not mandate it. It opens that definition of manifestly inappropriate and then we can apply appropriate proportionality within that. It does not rule out memorialisation or investigation. It does not rule out the identification of people's graves. While our amendment and our Bill could have been teased out more on Committee Stage if there were concerns, let it be said here that it does not demand exhumation. It only allows a scenario where if that level of intervention is needed, it is allowed, but it does not rule out memorialisation.

I want to be very careful that we will not leave this Chamber with idea that it was normal to have high infant mortality rates because those women, babies and families should never have been put there in the first place.

Hear, hear.

It is not okay and it is not normal. We need to be very careful about how we rewrite history and how we speak about it here in the present.

When is it proposed to sit again?

Tomorrow at 9.30 a.m.