Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I support the amendments Deputy Boyd Barrett tabled. In any scheme we are doing, it is important that decisions are made by the chief deciding officer. The Bill says it will be done as quickly as possible, but we have all seen in the past where that gets diluted because, as quickly as possible, it is left open ended. It is important we put a timeframe on that. It would be reasonable to do so, especially in view of the fact that what we are trying to do here is to give redress to people who are at an age where they have been fighting for years. It is important we bring closure to what they are doing.

I will address the big issue in this redress scheme. That 40% of the survivors are excluded from the redress has caught the Government in a wrong movement. This week, the Minister rightly announced supports of up to €1.2 billion, on top of supports of €2 billion or €3 billion that were brought in for the energy and cost-of-living crisis. I know extending this scheme to all of the survivors will cost more money, but it is not a cost we can walk away from. The people who are here in the Gallery and the people who could not make it here tonight and are watching on their televisions deserve to be treated equally. That is the essence of my concern.

I agree with Deputy Healy-Rae that it is emotional. It is emotional for the people who are affected by all of this. It is probably emotional for the Minister to deal with this and try to battle and balance things up, but there is no real reason or logic to excluding 40% of the people from the redress scheme. The only logic is the cost, which has been estimated at something like €300 million. In the overall context of all the good things we are doing in this country and the supports we are giving to very many people, the time is here for us to step up to the mark for the people who were let down by the State - shame on all of us that they were - and say we will do this. There is still time to do so. I plead with the Minister to back to the Government and the Ministers of Finance and Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, Deputies McGrath and Donohoe, to try to get this money in place.

The redress scheme was not set up based on costs. It was set up for the particular reason that the Government has apologised, on behalf of the nation, to the survivors and their families. We have done all of that. The principle of the redress scheme is recognition. I cannot figure out where the six-month threshold comes in. Is it medical or scientific or is it just a cut-off point? I cannot figure out how it was arrived at. How would a survivor who spent six months and one day there qualify and somebody who spent two days less - five months and then some - not qualify? Why do we divide the survivors? Why do we do all of that? That is the question that is coming back at me from anybody I have spoken to. I cannot explain it. I would love to hear an explanation, but I doubt if there is one other than a money cost. That is where the crux of all of this is.

I plead with the Minister to accept the amendment from Deputy Boyd Barrett and put a timeframe on the chief deciding officer's decision-making process in order that we have a fixed time. I ask him to consider the 40% of survivors we are walking away from.

See this speech in context