Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I am not in a position to accept this amendment because it would introduce a broad and sweeping power to the Minister beyond the agreed policy intentions underpinning the Bill. When drafting this legislation, I wanted to ensure that it was as broad and encompassing as possible while ensuring that the definitions and parameters included in it were strong enough to be sound legislatively and would not inadvertently introduce sweeping powers.

Section 5 reads: "The Minister may ... provide for the insertion in the Scheduleof any institution that was established or operated for the purpose of providing care to children". This term was carefully considered at the time. The section requires that the institution must have been subject to a regulatory or inspectorial function by a public body. I was assured by the drafters that this was sufficiently broad and that, regardless of whether an inspection took place, the institution would still have been subject to a regulatory or inspectorial function.

The question of broadening this provision was raised at a technical briefing that I delivered earlier in the process and to which Members were invited. I made the point that, if someone could provide me with an example of an institution that was not covered by this definition, I would be happy to examine the matter again, but I have still not been provided with a concrete example of what is missing. Senator Higgins has speculated that something like that could or would be the case, but if we are to move towards the very broad power that she is proposing, which carries little constraint on what sort of body could be registered in the Schedule by me or future Ministers, then we need at least some indication of what is being talked about. I have not heard any yet. While I accept the Senator's point about the architecture being revealed, I believe that the specific institutions are known at this stage and that the term "regulatory or inspection function" covers them.

It is important to remember what the Schedule is about. It is a catch-all for someone who was in an institution for a time but who does not fall within the broad definition of "relevant person" because he or she was not adopted from the institution, subject to an illegal birth registration from it or subject to a boarding out from it. We did not have this provision in the Bill originally, but some came forward and gave the example of a person who was born in a mother and baby home, spent a number of years there with his or her mother and subsequently left with her. The person was not boarded out, subject to an illegal birth registration or ever adopted. But for this Schedule, that person would not be able to use the provisions of this Bill. We included it to catch such cases. Being a "relevant person" - an adopted person - is enough to qualify someone under this Bill. A person does not have to have been in one of the institutions listed. There was some confusion in this regard, so I wish to put the situation on the record a final time.

A future Minister or I can add to the list types of body that are subject to a "regulatory or inspection function". This encompasses all relevant institutions within the architecture that we have discussed to date.