Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is not about individuals. It is about the State, the church, religious orders and the pharmaceutical companies and economic actors who took advantage of it. It was systemic and it has to be taken seriously. With all due respect to the experience of individuals in Bessborough, let us bear in mind that in the 1940s Bessborough had a mortality rate of 68% for children. That is what matters.

As regards the redress scheme, the Minister knows that during the heated debate on birth information and tracing I and other Senators made clear that any redress scheme must have no gagging order, no indemnity and no waiver. There is a waiver. That is a problem. The inclusion of a waiver contravenes international human rights, under which there should always be legal recourse in the courts and that should not be precluded. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated that compensation must not be seen as a means of buying the silence or acquiescence of survivors. Rather, it should be part of a comprehensive justice policy. It should not be a replacement for justice, but part of a comprehensive justice policy.

The inclusion of waivers is a mistake. All present are aware that in previous schemes, such as that relating to Caranua, for example, a significant amount of money was left unspent because the waiver set the bar too high and operated as a barrier to people. I do not think everyone eligible for the scheme will go for it when there is a waiver because people want their legal rights and their right to justice. I have several specific questions on the waiver. It was stated that there is no gagging order. Can the Minister fully confirm there will be no restriction on anybody who signs a waiver speaking publicly?The scheme is calculated on the basis of residence in a home rather than abuse. In that regard, I presume the waiver will not in any way preclude somebody from taking legal action relating to abuse, since abuse is not covered and is not part of the calculation. People need to be able to take action on that.

Will the Minister clarify whether signing the waiver will be required to access the medical card? It certainly should not be. This last point is crucial. Will this be a waiver only for the State or for State and non-State actors? If non-State actors are in any way protected by this waiver, that is an indemnity scheme and the whole scheme would just become another one of those. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that. I am hoping it is not the case. As previous speakers have said, the contribution from religious orders and the pharmaceutical companies is outstanding and must be addressed.