Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)

Will the concerns raised by various survivors' groups be taken into consideration in the forthcoming review? There are concerns, for example, regarding the commitment given by the previous Minister, Deputy Woods, that the awards in the redress process would be commensurate with awards in the High Court. As a result of the secrecy it is difficult to get all the facts and figures but there is a concern among survivors' groups that the awards are not commensurate with those in the High Court.

I put down this question during Mr. Sweeney's hunger strike and I am glad it came to a conclusion because it was getting close to the wire. I give credit to the Minister for coming up with a deal that appears satisfactory to the individual concerned. However, there is a danger that this problem will recur. What is the Minister's view of concerns that a member of the board, who is allegedly being examined for malpractice, is allowed to sit or that there are allegations of prejudice by Judge O'Leary against former inmates of the industrial schools? Much of it is hearsay. This is the advantage and disadvantage of the redress board.

To shed some light on the matter, would it not be better to have something similar to a court where people could report without naming individuals? While I accept we need to address concerns regarding those who might be wrongly accused, and the secrecy and behind the scenes nature of the board is of some benefit in this regard, when survivors feel they are being intimidated, snide comments are being made or their awards are not being taken seriously, there is no scope for examining this thoroughly. The very advantage of the redress system also has underlying disadvantages. Could this review examine how this might be tweaked without necessarily amending the Act?

See this speech in context