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

I thank the Senators for their contributions. I have put it on the record previously, but it is worth reiterating, that when the Taoiseach made his State apology, he recognised how the suffering of people in mother and baby homes and county home institutions was often compounded by racial discrimination. That is recognised.

I turn to the specific amendments brought forward by Senator Black. Amendment No. 108 proposes the inclusion of a new subsection in section 49 that would require a review to be commenced "should any opinion, decision or recommendation be made by either a domestic Judicial Review or international human rights treaty body, concerning the Act." That is a broad provision. Even if there were a judicial review or a review where the State was successful and adjudicated not to be at fault, a review would still be required under this provision. I am not sure if it be useful to undertake another review considering how many are provided for already. It could happen that a domestic court or international tribunal would make a finding against the scheme. Senator Boyhan alluded to the fact that there may well be litigation. In such a situation, the Government of the day would obviously take that seriously. In order for us either to meet our domestic or international legal obligations, the scheme would have to be looked at. We have always attempted to meet our international obligations. When decisions are made, be it by the international courts or international committees of the United Nations, the State responds to them. I do not believe that making a change to the review already provided for under section 49 is the right way to go. That section provides for review of the operation of the scheme at two set points. More importantly, it relates to how the scheme is operating in terms of what it is supposed to provide to applicants and how it is achieving the stated purpose.

I have a concern that amendment No. 113 goes way beyond what is provided for in section 49. It also goes beyond the scope of the scheme. Children were placed in many different types of institutions, as we know, not just mother and baby homes or county home institutions. The amendment as it is drafted proposes a review, which would consider the extent to which the scheme is in compliance with any determination by a judicial review of an international human rights treaty body. This would relate to remedies for any person who resided in an institution in which children were placed. That is a wide category that could prompt litigation from a wide category of potential institutions. It could also prompt a review of the scheme.

The amendment is also too broad. The reviews built into section 49 are about how the scheme operates. I have already flagged the issue of concerns about ineligibility. I have flagged that we will make sure, particularly in terms of the annual report, that those statistics will be highlighted. What is being attempted here is much broader than the review proposed under section 49.