Mr. Robert Watt:

To go back to the Chair's opening comment about the complexity, it depends specifically what is being referring to. There were certainly charges levied on people unlawfully. That is not to say the policy intent was not clear. There is no doubt about the policy intent but charges were levied on people unlawfully. There are issues around the various payments where there was a payment to individuals who were in the community when they went into an institutional setting or facility and the State met their needs in a different way. From 1983 to 1996, those payments were withdrawn. It is now established, as we all know, that that was unlawful. There are many different aspects to it. The policy intent is not being questioned here. There is no question about that. It is about the legal instrument that was used. In 1976, if the Government of the day had decided to introduce primary legislation in respect of these matters, this would not have happened. That was the issue. There is a lot of confusion about this. The policy intent is well understood by everybody but it is a matter of the legal instrument used and the failure to act on that and change it when there were legal doubts about it. That is the question.