The Minister is very welcome. If I am mistaken on this, I stand to be corrected. As I came into the Chamber, my party had received no email outlining which of our amendments, if any, have been ruled out of order, which is not satisfactory or fair. For those watching at home as well as our guests in the Chamber, it is important for the public to understand that very many substantive amendments have been ruled out of order, which means we cannot actually discuss them. This is even though they relate to very important…

That is an important point. I appreciate the Leas-Chathaoirleach making it.

If I am in the wrong, I will hold my hands up. It does not normally happen. I acknowledge it is quite unlike the Seanad.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. We are in the challenging situation of there being very few amendments we can specifically speak to. The amendments tabled by Senators Boyhan and Higgins pull together a number of our key concerns, albeit in asking for a report on them because that is what we are apparently restricted to, for the most part, today. I will cut to the chase. I hope the Minister knows he is someone I absolutely respect. He has taken courageous stances on occasion. I have recognised that on more than one…

We did not get the decisions at the same time as the Minister. Sinn Féin received no notice of amendments being ruled out of order.

I am just correcting a statement.

When was it sent?

Okay.

I have two points. My first relates to notification of amendments being ruled out of order. I am awaiting confirmation, but I am happy to accept our colleague's word that we must have received an email at 2.10 p.m. today.

I apologise. My colleague from the Labour Party mentioned that it came at 2.10 p.m. today. That leaves me puzzled in terms of the Minister stating he received that information yesterday evening. If that is the case I am again genuinely perplexed. I do not think it is acceptable to receive a list of our amendments ruled out of order one hour before the debate is due to begin.

That is true.

I am just quoting what the Minister said. That is fine.

I appreciate that clarity. I will move on to the key thing I want to say. This is important because I put a set of questions to the Minister in my previous contribution. With the greatest respect, he ignored them. I do not mind him ignoring me, but I suspect there are quite a number of people watching in this afternoon. They still have key questions which to date have not been answered. I ask him, please, for the courtesy of an answer - not for me, but for them. I have one key question. Why has the Minister decided…

I thank the Minister for the explanation but it is not an explanation. He has set out when a series of decisions were made. I am asking him to justify them. What is the rationale for excluding the 24,000 people who spent less than six months in an institution? It is a simple question. The people watching proceedings today want to hear an answer. I ask him to please give me that answer.

Well said.

The Minister has not answered.

At no point in his answer did he give an explanation for the justification for excluding people who spent less than six months in the institutions. He has not answered that question. I plead with him to do so. It is not for me but for the people watching proceedings. It is for the survivors, who have written to us in their thousands to tell us there is something fundamentally unjust about this part of the Bill. Simply to read out that it was a decision made by an interdepartmental group is not an answer. The Minist…

Oh my God.

Could the Minister please show us some collective respect? We are not asking rude questions. We are not being unpleasant to him. We are asking legitimate questions on behalf of the thousands of people who have contacted us. It is not acceptable to sit there in silence. It is a huge insult to the very people that this Bill purportedly sets out to protect but, as I pointed out already, in many cases excludes. The Minister has still not given us any justification for that exclusion and now his initial indication is th…

We are very disappointed that amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are ruled out of order. We hoped at least amendment No. 17 would be allowed. However, we must accept the decision of the Chair. The purpose of the amendments was to ensure the chief deciding officer is sufficiently impartial and independent. This is an important point that survivors would want us to defend. The office of the chief deciding officer must be independent and, in particular, the recruitment of staff to the office must be done independently. Our ame…