Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

To follow-up on Senator Boyhan's point, it relates to some of the earlier amendments we discussed. There is a difference between vaccination and the involvement in vaccine trials. Information that a person was vaccinated, be that as part of a trial or part of a medical procedure, is not itself the same as that information in respect of a process of exploitation, effectively, that the person was part of.

Again, with absolute respect to colleagues who referenced a barrister or legal representative, many people will not have legal representatives. That is why there is this attempt and this desire for these wider definitions. It is not to exclude other provisions but for more and more things to get named. People know they can battle for a phrase to say they believe it includes X, Y or Z, but they are not necessarily going to have that legal representation to make that battle for them, and they do not want to have to go that route. If there is a minimalist approach that says a person was given this or that vaccine, it is an explicit thing that is not in the Bill at the moment for a person to know he or she was part of a vaccine trial and to have some information or some record of what that person was part of, as might be appropriate. It obviously does not have to involve names of others who were subject to the trial.

It also comes to a question of where there was financial exploitation of children. That is part of the information people should be able to access in respect of themselves. They then may do what they wish with that in the form of any actions they wish to take, but financial exploitation is part of this and probably another part that is missing-----