Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman for his guidance.I am very disappointed by the fact that the Minister did not move to amend the legislation in the appropriate fashion in order to ensure that it is fully consistent with and faithfully reflects the scheme put forward in the Quirke report. We all know that Mr. Justice John Quirke proposed an ex gratiascheme, meaning that the women are asked to waive their rights to pursue the State through the courts in order to obtain a level of compensation that would I believe far outweigh the awards envisaged under the scheme. The trade-off is that in accepting an ex gratiascheme, the women obtain the comfort of prompt action and access to a variety of services. The Quirke scheme contains some extremely modest proposals. Indeed, as a redress scheme, it is not exactly flaithiúlach. It is, therefore, extremely disappointing that what is proposed in the legislation falls very short of what Mr. Justice Quirke envisaged.

On Second Stage I urged the Minister to amend the Bill and stated that if those of us on the Opposition benches attempted to do so, we would fall foul of the rule which states that we cannot bring forward amendments that represent a charge on the Exchequer. That is exactly what happened on Committee Stage and it is happening again now in respect of those amendments that need to be made. The Minister did not, either on Second Stage or Committee Stage, provide a satisfactory reply as to why she decided to go against the approach recommended by Mr. Justice Quirke and set out in appendix E - on pages 77 to 78 - of his report. In his first recommendation, on page 7, Mr. Justice Quirke states that the latter would require "Primary legislation similar to the Health (Amendment) Act 1996 or a statutory amendment to that Act is required in order to implement this recommendation." No reference is made to the Health (Amendment) Act 1996 in the Bill before us and that is what, as the Minister knows, the survivors were expecting.

On Second Stage we referred to the survivors and their advocacy groups many times. The Minister felt at the time that their fears were unfounded and I suggested to her that if that was her view, then perhaps she might meet the women and their advocacy groups. Will she indicate whether she did, in fact, meet them? In any event, I outlined what they were expecting and the fact that it is not included has made them very anxious. It appears to them that the Minister has broken her word and departed from Mr. Justice Quirke's recommendations, which they justifiably anticipated would be implemented in full in return for their ex gratiawaivers. That is a significant point. Section 2(2)(b) makes it quite clear that women who have accepted offers under the scheme are the only ones who can access the benefits established under the legislation before the House. Again, this underscores the nature of the trade-off and the scale of the concession made by the women as opposed to the State.

The explanations the Minister provided on Committee Stage are, quite frankly, not convincing. She claimed then and just now that she is acting in good faith to implement the Quirke recommendations. If that is the case, why is the list of services set out in section 2 so different from and so much more limited than that provided by Mr. Justice Quirke in appendix C of his report and set out in appendix G? Unless it is absolutely necessary to do so, I will not take the liberty of reading appendix G in its entirety into the record of the Dáil. The Minister is aware of what I am referring to. On Second Stage the Minister led the Dáil to believe that survivors would be provided with either HAA cards or RWRCI cards under the terms of this Bill, once it is passed into law. She has again referred to the matter of physical cards as an administrative issue. As she is aware, I tabled a parliament question in the aftermath of the Second Stage debate and she clarified in her reply that there is no concrete commitment in respect of these cards and that a decision on this issue will not be made until the legislation is enacted. I am of the view that this is not good enough, unless the Minister is going to inform us now that she has made a full, final and concrete decision.

The purpose of the legislation is to deliver fully and faithfully the scheme recommended by Mr. Justice Quirke and not the scheme as the Government might wish it to be or some interpretation or version of it. Let us remember that the scheme in question is a very minimalist and modest response to women who suffered the gravest of human rights violations under the watch of the State. I am very disappointed that the legislation does not do what I referred to. I do not believe the Bill as it currently stands is worthy of support.

Most of the amendments have been ruled out of order, as I stated. We will have the opportunity to debate one set of amendments, Nos. 17, 18 and 19. I do not know whether the Minister will be minded to accept any of those. This whole process has been unsatisfactory, underlining the limitations placed on us as Opposition Deputies. Any amendment that represents a charge on the State has been completely taken off the table. Thus, we find ourselves with inadequate legislation and a Minister who will not amend it appropriately to address the inadequacies. Members in the Opposition benches, while they can table amendments, are unable to insist they be debated in the House to try to urge the Minister to accept them. I am very disappointed with the whole process. I know my views reflect the views and anxieties of many of the survivors.

See this speech in context