Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have some specific questions that need answering. I have been informed that amendments Nos. 8 to 10, inclusive, which were on the definition of "relevant person", have been ruled out of order. That makes these amendments, Nos. 1 and 15, which try to address who is included as a relevant person, all the more important in reviewing it. I have some questions for the Minister because these are the choices that are being made around what comes in. We have been told the relevant person in the legislation is meant to be as wide as possible but it could be broader. For example, Senator Boyhan proposes, and this was also in No. 8, that those who were born in maternity hospitals and later transferred into the institution be included. This is the question of why it is not specified that a relevant person may include an adult who spent time in the institutions for any reasons. I think it is a child who spent time in the institutions and then it is an adult who spent time relating to pregnancy or child birth. I am conscious of those who may have been giving birth in a maternity hospital or institution and may have been transferred subsequently to a mother and baby home. I would like to know the thinking on that. Is it envisaged they will or could be included?Senator Boyhan has put forward amendments specifically to accommodate that by ensuring there is reference to the maternity hospitals and that the intersection between those hospitals and the mother and baby homes is recognised in the Bill.

Amendment No. 9 looked at another aspect of the definition of "relevant person" by seeking to recognise that the harm and abuse caused by these institutions did not always end at their gates. Children who were boarded out or nursed out from a relevant institution often ended up in situations in which the abuse to which they were subjected continued. This was directly due to the negligence of the institution in its decisions on arrangements in respect of those children. It is very dishonest to have a scheme that simply defines the harm done to children as beginning and ending at the gates of the institutions. We know that was not the case. I will speak about this again when we get to later amendments.

I have spoken before about how excluding residents in their first six months of life is wild. We know how important those first six months are and the significant impact of what was done to these children. I will speak presently on amendments I have tabled that relate to this. The issue with this provision is not just the vast number excluded by it but also the lack of recognition of the impact of harms experienced in that first six months of life. That is shocking, given everything we know about the importance of those six months. It is why we have maternity leave and all the other structures of State that are built around the crucial first few months.

I have also sought that the definition of "relevant person" would include and recognise mixed-race children who may have been segregated from a relevant institution under the Bill at an early stage and placed into another institution in respect of which a public body had a regulatory or inspection function. Mixed-race children in the institutions faced different treatment from that given to others, and additional prejudice. That should be acknowledged in the legislation and the system of payments. It is crucial to recognise that some of these children were removed from relevant institutions as a result of racial discrimination and placed elsewhere. Where relevant institutions were making unsatisfactory arrangements in regard to the care of vulnerable children, it is really important that these particular children be included in any scheme. Indeed, some of them spent longer than other children in relevant institutions because they were considered unsuitable for placement. The opposite was also true in some cases, with some mixed-race children spending less time in institutions because they were more quickly transferred into the industrial schools or other institutions not covered by the Bill. The Association of Mixed Race Irish has been very clear in its view that the length of stay criterion assumes mixed-race children stayed longer but does not take account of the range of discriminatory practices they may have experienced. The industrial schools and other institutions fall outside the remit of the scheme, which means there are children who are not properly or adequately recognised within its provisions.

All of this comes back to the length of stay criterion, which has never been justified on any scientific, moral or health basis. There is no justification for the criterion. A clear signal we got from the OAK report, whose authors spoke to the survivors of institutions, was that applying length of stay as a criterion for qualification for the scheme was not the right approach to take.

Each of the issues I have raised is touched on in amendment No. 15, but I had hoped to speak about them separately in addressing amendments Nos. 8 to 10, inclusive. However, those amendments were ruled out of order. I hope the Minister, in responding to amendments Nos. 1 and 15, will address the choices that were made in respect of the definition of "relevant person". He might also address the question of the decisions around medical payments, not just in respect of the medical trials but also by way of the limiting of access to certain health services to persons who spent fewer than 180 days in a relevant institution.