I want to speak to section 31, because our amendments to this section have been ruled out of order on the basis of a charge on the Revenue. It is frankly an astonishing interpretation of Standing Orders that an amendment would be judged to constitute a charge to the Revenue because it may at some point lead to a private individual taking legal action against the State. On those grounds, you could argue that any amendment we propose would be out of order and that any wording inserted in any Bill might one day be sub…

Which amendment?

It is to section 32. Can I speak to it?

I move amendment No. 80: In page 26, line 3, after “practicable” to insert “and within 40 days”.

To be honest, I do not want to repeat myself too much but the same issues apply to section 32 as to section 31. Our amendments were wrongly ruled out of order on the same basis but I will leave that issue for now. The wording in section 32 similarly imposes a waiver on an applicant to the scheme and says that: A person who receives payment ... shall not institute civil proceedings, and shall discontinue any other proceedings instituted, by or on behalf of the applicant against a public body, that arises out of the …

That would be very helpful. I thank the Cathaoirleach.

I move amendment No. 92: In page 27, line 22, after "practicable" to insert "and within 40 days". Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 108: In page 34, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “(2) Should any opinion, decision or recommendation be made by either a domestic Judicial Review or international human rights treaty body, concerning the Act, the Minister shall cause a review of the operation of the Scheme to be commenced as soon as possible after this determination but not later than 6 months after the date of the determination.”. Amendments Nos. 108 and 113 relate to justice for mixed-race survivors. As I hi…

I move amendment No. 110: In page 35, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: "(g) the extent to which relevant persons have applied but been deemed ineligible for general payments, work-related payments, and the provision of health services without charge, particularly as a result of residency requirements of a minimum number of days spent in a relevant institution;" Amendment No. 110 specifies that a review of the scheme would have to examine the extent to which relevant persons applied to the scheme but …

I move amendment No. 112: In page 35, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: “(h) whether the level of payments under the Scheme are adequate, and if they should be increased; (i) whether eligibility for a general payment should be extended to all relevant persons who were resident in a relevant institution for any period of time, including those who were resident for less than 180 days;”.

I move amendment No. 113: In page 35, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: “(h) the extent to which the Scheme is in compliance with any determination by a judicial review or an international human rights treaty body relating to remedies for any person who resided in an institution in which children were placed, either directly or from a relevant institution under Schedule 1, and in respect of which a public body had a regulatory or inspection function;”.

I move amendment No. 115: In page 35, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following: “Report on contribution of relevant parties to Scheme 50. (1) Under this section, “relevant parties” means persons, organisations, the estates of persons, or other entities involved at any time in the operation, management, administration or ownership of relevant institutions, or in the carrying out of illegal vaccine trials or any other medical experimentation on relevant persons. (2) The Minister shall, within 6 months of the …

The Tánaiste is welcome. I welcome any opportunity to talk about the importance of the Good Friday Agreement. I thank Senators McGreehan and Blaney for using their Private Members' time to table the motion. I know how passionate they are about the issue. I commend my colleague, Senator Currie, on her phenomenal work fighting against the legacy Bill and her strong passion and empathy for the families impacted by the legacy Bill. The Good Friday Agreement was a triumph of peacemaking and diplomacy and held real polit…

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. I am honoured to be here. I heard Rev. Good speaking at the event held last night as well. He genuinely has been a great asset to the work undertaken in bringing peace to this country and we are deeply grateful to him and many others involved in this process. I warmly welcome Rev. Good and his wife to Leinster House and hope they are having a nice day. I thank him so much. Go raibh maith agat.

I move amendment No. 5: In page 22, lines 40 and 41, to delete “(or is likely to be driven or used)”.

This amendment seeks to remove the provision from the Bill that would permit An Garda Síochána to enter any place, including the curtilage of a dwelling, without a warrant to seize a vehicle it reasonably believes is likely to be driven or used dangerously. The curtilage of a property includes gardens, paths, driveway, yards, garages or sheds used in conjunction with a house. My colleagues, Senators Boylan and Higgins, tabled a similar amendment on Committee Stage, which they acknowledged as being quite blunt. That…

I second the amendment.

I second the amendment.

I second the amendment.

I second the amendment.