Kathryn Reilly (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

There are parts of this Private Members' motion which Sinn Féin supports, including the call for an open practice of acknowledgement of wrongdoing by the State in instances where it, its agents or those employed to deliver its services have been responsible for wrongdoing or injury. There are other aspects of the motion, however, that we do not support, including its commendation of the Government for its comprehensive and successful political reform. It is disingenuous to include a call for such commendation in a motion which seeks a review of the State Claims Agency which nobody can deny is in need of reform.

The endemic culture of deny and defend in respect of State claims must be rooted out, particularly within the health service. Not only is this culture grossly wrong, it is also immensely harmful and hurtful to victims and their families. To err is human. Where an error occurs, it should be acknowledged, an apology should be given and the issue should be addressed, with adequate and fair compensation for the victims and their families through compassionate dialogue and negotiation, rather than by way of confrontational litigation that can be unfair and often causes distress to the victims and their families and results in increased legal costs.

On the no fault system of settlement and compensation, the State is at fault in these cases. I do not believe people take cases against the State lightly. Therefore, the cost of settlement and compensation falls at the State's door. The State Claims Agency has been involved in cases in which it knew it was wrong, but it continued to deny responsibility and defend its position, thus forcing victims to engage in lengthy and costly court cases. We would welcome a swifter and simpler claims process between citizens and State agencies. We would also welcome an open practice of acknowledgement when the State is in the wrong and adequate redress for survivors and victims of the State's wrongdoings.

I would do a disservice to the survivors of symphysiotomy, the victims of the Magdalen laundries and industrial schools and brave citizens such as Louise O'Keeffe if I did not highlight some of the hypocrisy at play. It was mentioned that the State Claims Agency was accountable to the Oireachtas and that the buck essentially stopped here. Fine Gael and the Labour Party are in government. This Private Members' motion was moved by a member of the Labour Party, which has participated in a Government that looked on as the HSE continued to follow a practice of deny and defend, resulting in families being forced through the courts in their search for justice and appropriate settlement before wrongdoing was admitted, including Louise O'Keeffe who was forced all the way to the European court to get justice.It has participated in a Government that refused to facilitate the passage of a Bill to lift the Statute of Limitations for the survivors of symphysiotomy and, subsequently, offered redress schemes, which many of them still claim are inadequate and insulting, and that excluded certain Magdalen laundries from a State inquiry while ignoring the recommendations of Mr. Justice Quirke in respect of the victims. It proposed a redress Bill that it knew was unacceptable to some of the victims.

We also have to examine the Labour Party's actions in government. Over the term of this Government, it did not try at any stage to make settlement and compensation less adversarial or confrontational between citizens and State agencies, particularly for Louise O'Keeffe, symphysiotomy survivors, Magdalen laundries' victims and many more. When it comes to the David and Goliath battle, Fine Gael and the Labour Party have been on the side of Goliath while the little person battles. The inverse has been the case. The Labour Party has contributed to making settlement lengthier and more arduous, costly, adversarial and confrontational. We support a fairer and less adversarial and confrontational system of settlement and compensation and we call on the State to fully admit responsibility when it is at fault.

Why was the motion not before the House four years ago or sooner? Why are we only seeing it in the dying days of the Government? The motion also includes a self-congratulatory line on the Government's so-called "comprehensive political reform". That is disingenuous and I do not accept that. We accept the initial part of the motion, but not the latter part.