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

I wish to put on the record our frustration and disappointment that it was only during lunchtime that we got an email from the committee secretariat advising us that the majority of the amendments that Deputies Funchion and Ward and I had submitted had been ruled out of order because they have financial implications under Standing Order 212. In effect, that means the substantive changes that were discussed at the committee during pre-legislative scrutiny and on Second Stage will never be examined.

The amendments ruled out of order may now only be discussed in the context of Deputy Sherlock's amendment seeking a report. They include: ensuring that the approximately 5,000 people who were boarded out would have been included in the scheme; adding people who were part of the illegal medical trials to the scheme; removing the arbitrary and discriminatory exclusion of people who spent less than six months in these homes as children; giving recognition for the systematic racism; and the removal of the requirement for survivors to sign a legal waiver.

For the people watching and for those the Bill impacts, it is important that we note that Standing Orders have done an incredible disservice to survivors and to the Irish people today. In reality, the Minister would have disregarded most or all of those amendments but at least they would have been discussed and these survivors would have heard their words and the points they raised in the OAK report being at least considered.

Committee Stage is supposed to be a chance to properly interrogate ideas and formally and non-formally influence legislation. The only thing we can do now is to ask the Minister to include a report to look at those things. Alternatively, we could ask him to look at the amendments that were ruled out of order and potentially introduce them himself. We have discussed this legislation during Private Members' business and so on. I had wondered how the Minister would during Committee and Report Stages defend something like preventing children who spent less than six months in institutions from getting redress. Now we will not be able to discuss it. I am not saying that is down to him; that is the Standing Order.

In the interest of everybody watching it would be good to explain why people who spent less than six months in institutions cannot get redress. People do not want to hear that the Minister thinks the birth information and tracing legislation is sufficient redress for those people because we know it is not. It is a shame that we cannot discuss it through the amendments we had tabled. People would like a proper explanation.