Mr. Robert Watt:

I thank the Deputy for the question. We were as uneasy and as appalled as anybody else when we saw the programme. Officials in the Department were as upset about what was said and the distress that it may cause families, as well as the fact that the allegations were untrue. I absolutely agree with the Deputy in that if it is established, which it might be subsequently, that there is no validity behind these allegations, which will be up to others to decide, the damage, unfortunately, still will have been done. People may not necessarily look back at what the final outcome to this is. They will have watched the programme or heard the discussion about it. Unfortunately, no matter what the outcome is, trust can be eroded. The Deputy is correct that no matter what happens, that is a regrettable outcome of this. Where responsibility lies for that is for others to decide.

On the question about cases taken, I will reiterate the point that the majority of cases do not go to court. Only two of the 230 cases had actually gone to court. Most of these are settled.

There is a wider issue, which I guess is the kernel of the Deputy's question and which is a policy question, about people taking cases against the State in order to improve access to services. There is a question about the State's position about whether it should contest or accept them. As we said in response to earlier questions, in many cases the evidence presented by the plaintiffs is such that the State will accept, settle quickly and will not contest the case.

There is a wider policy question, however. Citizens have rights and have the right to have those rights vindicated legally through the courts. That is how our Constitution and our legal system works. I do not think there is ever going to be a situation where we find that families are 100% satisfied with the service they receive. There is never going to be a situation where everybody will be satisfied all the time. That is the nature of it. It is a contested and challenging space. We would like a situation where it never came to people taking cases. We would like a situation where the services provided were met to the satisfaction of all the families all the time. Sometimes, however, people do not believe that and they want more and better. They have a right to challenge that.

From the State's perspective, which gets to the absolute essence of the discussion, the question is what is the role of the State in this regard. Should the State not contest the cases? If the State did not contest cases, services would be provided not on the basis of laws passed in the Oireachtas and then the administration of those laws by Departments. Instead, the prioritisation of service provision would be on the basis of who has access to the legal system and solicitors. If Departments did not challenge or accepted the case whenever a service was deemed to be inadequate, in effect the system would be gummed up forever with legal challenges. The basis upon which we actually administer schemes would fall down. It would not be on the basis of need but who has access to legal representation. Nobody believes such a course of action would be desirable.