Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

There is no testimony more compelling than that of Deputy Boyd Barrett today because that is a first-hand account. If that does not impact on all of us, and particularly on the Government, then we are in cold times as regards the promulgation of this legislation. I put forward this amendment on Committee Stage because like others, we in the Opposition feel so constrained in seeking to amend legislation. The only tool we have in our toolkit so as to avoid a charge on the Exchequer is to put down these amendments and seek to have them repeated from Committee to Report Stage.

This amendment is proportionate. The Minister will say it is not but I would argue with him that it is because this scheme is vast in its undertaking and given the number of people who would be potentially omitted from it, we believe that at the very minimum this amendment deserves to be passed. All it calls for is a report into "whether and to what extent persons engaged in the management, administration or operation of relevant institutions should be permitted or required to contribute to the cost of making payments under this Act". I do not see how that is disproportionate. It seems reasonable to me. Second, the report would examine "whether the 180 days residence requirement provided for in section 13(1) and (4) should be amended or repealed". There is nothing wrong with looking back at a section of legislation that has been passed to ask whether it is fit for purpose and whether it should be reviewed. Third, the report would look into "whether the Scheme should be extended so as to make provision for recognising persons who were boarded out as children as relevant persons".

When I put forward my amendment, which I am happy to share with colleagues, the Minister addressed the issue of the 180 days on Committee Stage. He said:

Absences of up to 180 days will not disqualify somebody from making a claim. The reason for that is that we know there were people who, because of what happened in the institutions, the ill health they suffered, the poor conditions or the poor treatment, spent large amounts of time not in the home but in hospital, often returning to the home ...

We just want those people to be included. We want any report into or review of the scheme to ensure those people are included so they are not excluded forever or so the next generation of politicians is not revisiting this in 20 or 30 years' time. If the lessons of the last week or two are anything to go by, we will be revisiting this, mark my words, as sure as night follows day. The people who were aged from zero to six months will wish for this to be revisited somewhere down the line. I have no doubt about that. The evidence of the correspondence we have received should be enough to jolt any government into action in respect of that cohort of people who need for this to be dealt with, now and in a contemporary way - not down the line but now. That is the hallmark of fairness, for it to be dealt with in the here and now.

In the amendment, we are looking specifically for a report into whether the duration of the scheme should be extended. That is not unreasonable. We were very conscious when we were putting forward the wording of this amendment that we would seek to be reasonable in our approach. We did not want to be rhetorical but ask the Minister in the hope he would see that nothing we are requesting here is unreasonable or disproportionate. That is why we find ourselves here today on Report Stage, because we failed on Committee Stage to have those measures put into the legislation and we are now asking again. We are coming back to the table to ask that those people be looked after.

Looking at the Minister's response in respect of section 42 of the Act, he again stated:

The intention of section 42 is for two reviews to be conducted on the scheme. One is an interim review to be commenced two years after the establishment day while the other is to be commenced after the completion of the scheme. Section 42 sets out a list of matters that should be considered as part of these reviews and allows for the Minister to specify any additional matter.

The Minister has the power to specify any additional matter. Furthermore, he stated, "Section 12 provides that the chief deciding officer shall prepare an annual report on the performance of his or her function and that each annual report will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas."

We are putting much store in what the chief deciding officer will determine. The Minister can "specify any additional matter." Those were the Minister's words when he spoke on Committee Stage. I am sure he will repeat those words at Report Stage. All we are asking is for the report on the operation of the scheme to include the subsections we have set out in amendment No. 2. That is not an unreasonable request. I say this in an absolutely non-partisan way and in the spirit and tone of being very conscious about the impact of this issue on society. There is a psychological scar on society because of this issue and the attempts by this generation of politicians who have this mandate now to try to improve the scheme in a way that ensures we will not be revisiting this at some future date.

See this speech in context