Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I hear what the Minister is saying, namely that the intention is not to reduce or restrict eligibility in any way shape or form but instead clarify it. However, when I read the Bill I see it differently and have some concerns that it is the opposite. Perhaps that is something we can work out in our conversation.

On the addition of the concluding years, I read the briefing document provided by the Minister, for which I thank him. In the document he states that the Government until recently believed county homes ceased the practice of admitting unmarried women in the early 1960s. The briefing document goes on to say it recently came to the attention of the Department that the understanding that county homes closed by the mid-1960s and did not provide mainstream health services to the general population is not a fully comprehensive depiction of the circumstances.

My understanding is that the inclusion of the concluding year is necessary to distinguish residents of the institution from residents of the hospitals co-located on the same sites. However, I am hesitant to support any amendment which would create cut-off points based on information that has recently changed and is still moving. In the Minister's document, he said there is still new information or understanding emerging about how these institutions operated or when practices ended in these institutions. In light of that fact, how can we decide on a concluding year or cut-off point when we do not have absolute certainty? How can we be certain that no abuse or harmful practices were taking place after the concluding years that we are putting into the Bill?

If we cannot be certain, surely it is better not to include them in the Bill. It is awful to think of survivors who may be wrongly excluded by a concluding year when we are receiving new information. This proposal does not feel solid or clear enough. I understand if some sort of distinction needs to be included in the Bill. The concluding year is too blunt. People will rule themselves out of applying. Others will be refused based on the concluding year. I have heard what the Minister has said about amending the legislation to change the concluding year, but that involves a significant passage of time for the cohort of people covered by the Bill if their applications are refused and the legislation needs to be changed in order to change the concluding year. Is there a better way to do this?

Could it be determined whether an application had merit based on the information a person provides rather than on a concluding year? We would then consider the relevant information as it comes in. If someone is making a case that they were in an institution or co-located space after a concluding year, we would then work with the application based on the information we have received instead of basing the scheme on information that is changing. We do not have complete clarity on how some institutions operated after the cut-off points and years.

Regarding amendments Nos. 5 and 7, I cannot support them. The rationale offered, if understood correctly, is that it is necessary to further narrow the definition of relevant persons in order to distinguish the residents of county homes from the patients of county hospitals, which may have been co-located on the same site as the homes. However, I fear this amendment has implications beyond the distinction the Minister is trying to create between residents of institutions and hospital patients. The further narrowing of the definition of relevant persons conflicts with our proposals for an expanded scheme. Many of our amendments to the Bill attempt to remove the 180-day and 90-day residency requirement for children and mothers who were resident in institutions to qualify for general or work-related payments under the scheme.

We have repeatedly highlighted that some of the most traumatic things that mothers experienced in these home were childbirth and actively cruel practices such as the denial of pain relief during childbirth. These experiences occurred within a very short period of time after entering a home and have had lifelong consequences for many. This is why it is our belief that any person who spent even a single day in a home should qualify for the general payment and an enhanced medical card under the scheme. My concern is that the new definition of relevant person means that a person would only qualify for the scheme if the primary purpose of their admission to the relevant institution was the provision of shelter and maintenance.

Later on, in the debate on the waiver, we will discuss the meaning of circumstances and whether the word "circumstances" is all-encompassing. We will make arguments that all circumstances are included by the word "circumstance" and that is what we will go back and forth on. However, we are making the complete opposite argument regarding something like this where we are not recognising particular circumstances which may be that of childbirth itself.

Some people may have accessed maternity services and did not go into shelter but experienced forced separation. Some of those women may not have returned home with their children from the maternity service or hospital piece. They may not have made it into shelter, but that does not mean they did not spend several weeks in the hospital after a difficult and painful birth and still did not leave with their children.

Amendment No. 7 clarifies that a person who received shelter incidental to the provision of maternity care would not meet the definition of a relevant person. It is not enough that they entered a home to give birth; they would have to have been sheltered there for a long period additional to the birthing period. We have serious concerns that this new definition would exclude mothers who spent a particularly short time in an institution. The requirement that a person must have been receiving shelter and maintenance from the institution means that, for example, a mother who gave birth in an institution, was separated from her child and left the institution a couple of weeks later would potentially no longer be defined as a relevant person.

Later on, when it comes to a waiver we will say that the waiver prohibits them from speaking about forced separation in terms of that being a circumstance of being in the shelter.Here, we are saying that under the category of a relevant person, that does not apply because they did not end up in the shelter for a long period but they did experience forced separation. On one hand it is a circumstance and on the other, it removes them from being a relevant person. That is my fear about this amendment. I worry about the fact that, if a mother was there primarily to give birth, she would no longer be defined as a relevant person as she would not meet the criteria of primarily being given shelter and maintenance. I cannot support a new definition that may exclude certain mothers from general payments and creates additional obstacles to the widening of the scheme in the future, which is what we want to achieve. We have argued strongly that every person who spent any amount of time in the institutions, particularly mothers who gave birth in them, must be entitled to both general payments and enhanced medical cards under the scheme. This amended definition would move us further from that goal and I have no choice but to oppose amendments Nos. 5 and 7 for this reason.

On amendment No. 49, maybe the Minister could give some clarity to further explain why "pregnancy related" is a better term to use than "maternity". I do not really understand the motive for that. The Minister referenced it in a line or two in his contribution and indicated that it was to make a distinction between those who were there to use maternity services only and others.