Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

The amendments seek to delete "and" and substitute "or" so it would not have to be the two requirements. It could be one or the other. How is it restricting it? It would not be the case that one would have to have been ordinarily resident and there was a manifestly inappropriate burial. It could be one or the other. If one is not ordinarily a resident in the site but there is a potential manifestly inappropriate burial, there cannot be an intervention because one was not ordinarily a resident. For example, we hear reports of somebody who had a stillbirth in the hospital and the remains are potentially in Tuam. Those remains are not of somebody who was ordinarily resident there but they are perhaps manifestly inappropriately buried there, as the Bill puts it. Why does it have to be both? My amendment is to change "and" to "or" so it does not have to be the two. One or the other could trigger an investigation.