From my experience of trade unionism and negotiations, I dislike situations where people have the option of pursuing two or three different courses of action. If people opt to use the redress board – they should be encouraged to do so – it should provide a forum which allows them a full and final settlement of their position vis-à-vis the State. This means that their accusations would not need to be addressed with the same urgency as those made by others. Some attempt should be made to bring together the redress and investigative aspects as it is not a good idea that they should be pursued separately. At some stage people will have to be compensated, but the separation of these aspects requires them to pursue two paths – the redress board for compensation and the commission for investigation. This leads to a duplication of work in that those involved in the redress board will sift through the same evidence as those in the commission, albeit not to the same forensic extent. While the commission will reach a conclusion about allegations, the redress board will decide on the compensation to be paid. This will lead to a duplication of work, which is not a good idea. There is a need to reconsider how both these aspects may be pursued together.