Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I echo what Deputy Funchion said about people listening to the debate and will not reiterate it. I fully support that.

The Minister replied in respect of the appointment of Sheila Nunan and cannot comment on it. The problem is that if those negotiations had taken place prior to the creation of the scheme, perhaps it would be more comprehensive. Perhaps it would have taken away the fears of the establishment in regard to cost-containment measures because we would be operating from a bigger pool. Negotiating now, after the event, is to help pay for what the Government has done in a cost-containment measure, which is miserly.

It has been ignored that the records are out there somewhere, outside of the establishment’s remit and State agencies. The records are there but nobody has any idea where they are. There have been various reports. I was racking my brain to try to recall where I read about this lately. I do not want to do a disservice to the person who witnessed the records being burned. That person had saved some of the records - the story emerged recently but the context escapes me at the moment - but was ordered by the brothers to burn the records. This was in relatively recent times.

Turning to the Bill itself, I might point out something to the Minister in section 22, regarding the chief deciding officer, that I tried to point out previously. If an applicant is unhappy with the information, he or she may seek additional information from the information source. I love these words, "information source". It states the chief deciding officer "may share with the applicant a copy of information accessed which is relevant to determinations made in relation to his or her application." I raised this during an earlier discussion on the Bill. I am not sure why that power would be left to a deciding officer, who will access information and make a decision on it but who may or may not share it with the applicant coming forward. That seems to be a complete imbalance of power, with a decision being made on the basis of documents the applicant has no access to. I raised this previously and would appreciate it if the Minister dealt with it.

As for his hope people will not take legal advice, I do not share that. One might say that is because of my legal background, but it is not really. I advise people to stay away from courts and solicitors insofar as they can, but for the Minister to say he anticipates people will not need legal advice is not acceptable to me, given that section 43, on legal costs, is extremely limited.

There are various grounds for appeal. When the appeals officer has heard a case, one of them goes back to the chief deciding officer, who will convey the result to the applicant. That does not even appear to be right. If an appeals officer makes a decision, it should be him or her who notifies the applicant. I raise these points because this is indicative of the mentality behind this scheme for the former residents we are dealing with.

As regards sites of conscience, there have been repeated references to this term being used in respect of the former Magdalen laundry. I understand a lot of people are unhappy about that, but the site of conscience should be this House. This is where we should be acting according to conscience.

See this speech in context