Mr. Peter Tyndall:

I think the wrongs can be differentiated. I think the schemes were set out for different purposes and to redress different wrongs.

The fact that the judge in the High Court reached the same conclusion gives weight to that finding. It is not just our view.

The issue for me is twofold. One of them is that the Residential Institutions Redress Board, RIRB, scheme was not designed to compensate people for forced labour, and that is what we are talking about in the Magdalen laundries. Even if people had access to the scheme, they would not be getting redress in respect of that aspect. The second point I would make is that there are women who did not, in any event, receive redress under that scheme and who now have no prospect of receiving redress under it, and they will be permanently excluded from redress for a wrong that everyone accepts they should never have suffered. We are talking particularly about young women who were detained for whatever reason. Most of those young women today would be taken into care. Instead, they were forced to work alongside older women in these laundries, and we need to compensate them for that. I have a personal view, which is that it would be better to run the risk of double compensation than to see people excluded from access to redress that they should receive.