That is pathetic.

I will raise the case of a person who spent five years of his early life in Nazareth House, Sligo. While his situation is unique to him, many others found themselves in the same circumstances so my ask is a general one. Nazareth House was an orphanage and care home but this person was not an orphan. Some three days after giving birth to him, his mother was forced to emigrate by her family, local clergy and, indeed, wider society, who did not want what was then called a "fallen woman" in their midst. A three-day-old motherless child was therefore put into care. This was back in the early fifties. A few months ago, this man became aware of the mother and baby institutions payment scheme and asked me to submit a parliamentary question asking whether Nazareth House could be included in it. The response I received was very clear. It stated: "Nazareth House was not an institution that provided ante and post-natal facilities and therefore not included in the scheme." Needless to say, this man is very disappointed. He spent five years in Nazareth House and while he emphasised that he himself was not abused and was indeed shown some kindness, he is well aware that many other boys suffered horrible abuse at that time.

That is not the end of his story, however. One day, when he was six years old, a priest and a couple came to see him. The next day, he was told to pack his little bag and was put into the back of a small van and brought to live with total strangers. His last memories of Nazareth House are of waving out the small windows at the back of the van to his friends and them waving back at him as he travelled down the avenue. His life from then on was hard slave labour on the farm he lived on and on neighbouring farms. Nobody ever came to see how he was doing.

I have read the legislation on the mother and baby homes and the negative response I received is accurate. However, now that the scheme is up and running and is recognised as a positive gesture by the State towards those who were grievously wronged in its care, will the Government consider extending the scheme to include all of those children who found themselves in institutions that were identical to mother and baby homes with the sole difference that their mothers did not give birth to them in those institutions and did not spend any time nursing them there afterwards? In many ways, this is, if possible, more cruel to all of those babies who were seen as a stain on our society. Their sense of loss, desolation and rejection never leaves them. It was just as grave for them as for anybody who spent time in a mother and baby institution. I know it is a big ask to extend this legislation to include institutions like Nazareth House but I hope the Tánaiste will consider it.

I thank the Deputy for raising this case and this issue. The life story she outlined is harrowing. I accept the presentation she has made in respect of that life journey and what happened in our past as regards institutionalisation and how our society evolved in respect of children who were subsequently adopted and children who were placed in less than ideal situations. The Deputy said that the child in question was brought to a farm and essentially used as slave labour in shocking conditions.

The commission of investigation set up in 2015 was tasked with examining the use of mother and baby institutions and county homes. Their establishment was shameful. I find it very difficult to comprehend the mores of the time and how county homes evolved into mother and baby homes over the decades but the terms of reference were focused on those institutions, the mother and baby homes, that sought to provide a place of antenatal and postnatal residence to both mother and baby. That was the remit of the commission. All of that was associated with shame, blame, judgment and subsequent very harsh treatment. It took five years for the commission to complete its work. The report was voluminous in itself. The Government of the day may not have anticipated that it would take that long to complete its work. The commission's work essentially did not cover other institutions that were also associated with stigma, trauma and abuse. Going back over the past two, three and four decades, we have been investigating various institutions including industrial schools, Magdalen laundries and mother and baby homes. There has been a very substantial excavation of our past as regards the institutionalisation that was rife in how society dealt with issues in the past. It has been very traumatic for many people.

It has taken a long time. It inevitably does.

The Deputy identified one institution. There may be others in different categories. It is very difficult to encompass various scenarios. In other scenarios - orphanages, and it is essentially an orphanage - other orphanages had more benign impacts or would have been of assistance to particular families as well. We can review and look at this but in fairness, in the context of the mother and baby homes, that was what the commission was asked to investigate and the redress scheme was very much in response to the commission's recommendations.

The Tánaiste and I agree on the historical aspect. My question is about how the State in some way tries to compensate a little bit for some of the awful experiences of those children in its care. I looked at the review clause in the legislation and I am not sure there is actually a possibility to extend it. However, section 49 states that the Minister, in considering whether an institution shall be inserted, because the Minister has that power, shall have regard to the circumstances experienced by persons resident in an institution and whether these were comparable to those experienced by persons resident in institutions specified in the current legislation. There is a tiny opening there for a Minister to look at in the future. While I understand this would be a significant expansion of the scheme, in view of the fact that it is now seen as a just and good course of action, I am asking the Tánaiste just to look at that. I am not asking him to make commitments on the floor of the House today, just to confirm that he will not close the door on this.

Review mechanisms have been built into the legislation. Doors are not finally closed. However, I would offer this point as well. I set up the commission into industrial schools. I remember meeting on day one with the survivors, who actually never looked for a redress scheme. It was clear to me that future housing, healthcare and constant counselling were important - so lifelong. At times, that can be a better response from the State.

Yes.

Having been through this for 20 or 25 years now, I have seen that in all of the various commissions and investigations, lawyers get involved very quickly and it moves very quickly to redress. We do it, and the State owes redress, but the more substantive response in my view is lifelong provision of counselling, housing and supports for people who have been through terrible ordeals in their lives because of institutionalisation or whatever. That is a view I have formed over a long time dealing with many cases of this kind.