Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I understand Deputy Funchion’s concerns, but the legislation clearly sets out that after five years, the scheme will cease and that is it. The issue is if we are interested in having a meaningful review, the review could come up with a recommendation that the scheme should go on for longer. I am fundamentally opposed to the Bill in the manner it is laid out. I am now tweaking legislation that I am unhappy with. I am simply asking questions in relation to it. We are pre-empting the outcome of the independent review. In amendment No. 2, which we lost, we were setting out important criteria that would allow the scheme to be extended. I am fundamentally against the five-year limit. Another scheme - I think it was for the Magdalen laundries - was open for longer. Precedents have been set. We could also consider leaving the scheme open-ended. No justification has been given for the five-year duration. We are now pre-empting the review and the review cannot extend the duration of the scheme.

The role of chief deciding officer is supposed to be independent. I have a difficulty with that based on my experience of Caranua and comments made publicly by the former director and so on. The office will be within the Minister's Department. The chief deciding officer will make the decision within the Department. The appeal will be heard by a panel of individuals, one of whom can sit. When they make their judgement, that decision goes back to the chief deciding officer who conveys the decision, which is very unusual. When a decision of the Circuit Court is appealed to the High Court, the High Court gives the judgment. A person does not have to go back to the Circuit Court to get the judge to give the decision of the High Court. Whereas in this case, extraordinary power is given to the deciding officer who is then the conveyor of the outcome of the appeal process.

Another section concerns me. I am usually good at identifying them but I am very tired now. There is a section that allows the chief deciding officer to request more information. The deciding officer can request a sworn affidavit from the person if he or she is unhappy with the information provided. The deciding officer can also seek information from relevant institutions or entities that have information. I could be wrong, but when I read that, I saw no provision-----

See this speech in context