David Norris (Independent)

I welcome the opportunity to support some of these amendments, which I do with pleasure, particularly amendment No. 1. There seems to be a cogent case for supporting this amendment, particularly paragraph (a), which would apply to "a person who was a former resident of a scheduled institution and who was eligible but did not apply under subsection (2) of the Act of 2002". This seems to be similar to the question of the Statute of Limitations. In a number of recent cases in the Supreme Court and other courts the Statute of Limitations has been set aside, to a certain extent, in order to provide constitutional justice even though it was not specifically provided for in law and might appear to have been barred.

Those affected by this amendment may well be people who did not apply because of ignorance, damage, trauma or whatever. If they are able to apply now I do not think it would create an enormous additional burden on the Exchequer. Therefore, I urge the Minister to consider this paragraph in particular.

I have no particular difficulty with the amendment that refers to the provision of education services. However, a number of people who have corresponded with me have such a difficulty. There are differing views on this issue. Survivors are not a homogeneous group of people. They are all individuals who have suffered in different ways and take different approaches to the situation. Some of them have told me they find this measure insulting. Yesterday, a gentleman spoke to me on the telephone for half an hour. He had simply left his name and a message that he wished to speak about abuse, and I did not know what to expect when I rang him back. He was a highly intelligent, decent, balanced man. He said he was in his late 60s, his wife had been a tremendous support to him and he did not need education and did not want it. He said he felt slightly humiliated that this is being offered to him as an option. This may not be true of other people, whether younger or older. When I taught in Trinity College one of the great joys was derived from mature students who came with an experience of life, but not everyone wants education.

Then there is the question of children and grandchildren. I am not an expert in this area and I may be taking an unpopular position on this. I am thinking of the amounts of money involved and directing it at the most vulnerable people. I would imagine the impact diminishes on a generational basis. I could be incorrect. There may be different effects for grandchildren. I would push this proposal less forcefully.

Since we are dealing with people's human rights, which include the right to retribution, I take this opportunity to raise a matter with the Minister. I have raised this matter on numerous occasions and have never had a satisfactory answer. I find it an appalling breach of human rights that there is an exhibition of human bodies in the former Rotunda building in Dublin. I have been told by Falun Gong that these may be the bodies of victims of judicial execution in China. No permission was granted for their bodies to be exhibited and this is a massive violation of human rights. I know this is not directly germane to the Bill but I raise the matter so that the Minister will be aware of it. The exhibition is advertised as an educational thing by The Irish Times, CIE, RTE and others without any concern for the human rights of those whose bodies are displayed.