Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will make a few brief points. Nearly all that can be said on the issue has been said, but I will pick up on a few small points. The forced family separation piece is not only about people giving evidence to get additional payments. Some people, despite not being registered as having been in the county home for one night, still experienced forced family separation because of these institutions. Under this scheme, such people will not be able to get payment. In recognising forced family separation, we recognise that the institution does not just mean the four walls. It is bigger than that. Political institutions are made up of several houses. With regard to co-location on sites, when we refer to mother and baby institutions, we do not just mean the physical space, we mean everywhere the institutions' arms reached into. Last week's amendments narrow eligibility because, where people experienced forced family separation on co-located sites, they will not be eligible because they did not spend a night in what is considered a county home. We are referring to institutions, but what is the definition of "an institution"? We must understand what that definition is. It should include all buildings within an institution, which would allow those who experienced forced family separation to be included. On the wording, I refer to aspects such as financial pressures, lack of family support and all the other reasons and then saying that this somehow led to a decision that women had to give up their children. The point is we are referring to "forced family separation". In many cases, there was no decision. It was not that women were deciding with a full understanding of the context of their lives. A decision is not being made in respect of forced family separation. This issue is bigger and broader than saying women decided that they had to give up their babies.

Regarding GSK, I understand there has been engagement with the company in the context of the power, ability or capacity the Minister has in the context of big pharma or private entities. Ensuring that this legislation provides that a report will be undertaken examining important parts of this issue may mean there could be other ways for the State to force action in this regard, perhaps through a medical negligence tax, for example. There are other ways to be able to go after private industries. These approaches may not necessarily be in this legislation, but we could use it as the catalyst to be able to have a report compiled on these institutions, private entities or pharmaceutical companies that can lead to greater change in this area. I will not add anything more. Enough has been said on the issue now.