Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will speak briefly to the section. It is regrettable that these amendments, which are around definitions, have not been allowed to be discussed. I will signal some of the key questions involved because this is a crucial part of the Bill. Section 2 is where the definitions are set out. It is where the definitions for the phrases used later in the Bill are set. The Opposition has made some constructive proposals about how those definitions could be improved. I ask that thought and consideration are given to strengthening and improving those definitions between now and Report Stage.

I do not think we got a response about the scope for looking for wider definitions. This is not about additional payments. It is about the question of relevant persons and relates to questions around persons who were boarded out or nursed out, and whether they might be included as relevant persons. It is important for that question to be addressed.

There is also a question about mixed race children who were placed in other institutions in respect of which a public body had a regulatory or inspection function, either directly or through another relevant institution referred to in Schedule 1, for a period of time.I would like to get clarity around the scope to potentially include these persons in the definition of "relevant person". This is separate from the later points which are on additional payments for specific and additional traumas. This is about the general question of the dangers of some of the groups. We have spoken the major exclusion of the 180-day piece, but that comes later on payments.

The other question, which is something Senator Boyhan had highlighted, relates to persons who may have given birth in a maternity hospital but may have been subsequently transferred to a mother and baby home. The way the relevant person is set out in the Bill at the moment is that it talks about them as children who were there for any length of time and then other persons who were there to do with labour, birth and so forth. Is there a danger that persons who gave birth in a different institution such as a maternity hospital, but who were then subsequently transferred and may have spent many years in a mother and baby home institution, could fall out of the scheme?

Those were three very specific questions. Senator Boyhan's amendment No. 11 that was ruled out of order slightly tweaked that to include "born in, or admitted as resident to the relevant institution,". It does not restrict that to a child but it recognises an adult who may have been admitted as a resident to the relevant institution. These are ways in which the definition could have been more widely framed.

There was also the question of the additional institutions. There are also institutions where children of mixed African and Irish parents or descent were placed, where a public body had a regulatory or inspection function. The Minister will be aware that Senator Boyhan sought to include a definition of relevant maternity hospitals. I ask him to comment in respect of this section, in terms of the definitions of the institutions and of relevant persons. I wish to know what his thinking is in regard to those potential exclusions. This is separate from the question of the scheme, how much people may be paid, and so forth. This is the question of the potential gaps, nursing out, and placement in another institution and an adult who is moved to a mother and baby institution having given birth in a maternity hospital.