Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

While I believe six months is a reasonable period, it may be, of course, for this reason the amendments do not get accepted. I am sure others in the House may wish to seek to bring forth reports after 12 months, or another period, and this may prove more acceptable. I am sure this is something we may see proposed on Report Stage. I refer to amendments looking to different periods of time, if this is the problem. Again, I suggest the availability of certain officials and their work programme is not the central focus in this regard and, if necessary, additional resources need to be allocated.

I will go through some of the responses and I am pretty concerned about one. On amendment No. 33, concerning those abroad, I refer to the context of there not being a desire to take on board the kinds of proposals I have suggested. My call for a report concerned looking at exactly what options might be appropriate in this regard. The example was given regarding the very large numbers of people we know who travelled to the UK. In some cases, these people were forcibly dragged back to Ireland, put into mother and baby homes and other institutions and then saw that they needed to escape again. These people, of course, need to be recognised. This is another example of an unnecessary mean-spiritedness, not from the Minister personally but in terms of the design of the scheme, in respect of people being given the choice of getting €3,000 where they are now or the enhanced medical card which they could use when they travel back to Ireland. If people end up in situations where they do accept the €3,000 and then their health deteriorates further and they must return to Ireland, why should these people not be able to get the enhanced medical card at that stage?

I do not believe anybody who simply goes to get the enhanced medical card will hold it against anybody else who has had to come back and receives it then. Why make this a choice? It is just adding to the layered, painful choices we are placing on people who have already suffered enough. We are forcing them to choose between the compensation and their right to seek justice in other ways and between getting a small payment now where they reside or perhaps being entitled to enhanced medical cards or medical services in the future. For some, the journey home is something they have to undertake very reluctantly, given the distressing memories it causes to arise. It should not be the case that these people will be told they received this €3,000 previously. They may have used it for one operation or, if they were coming from America, for example, one hour in their health service and it was gone.

The point I wish to focus on that I am quite concerned about, however, is the language that was used in respect of amendment No. 34, and more generally. I note the question I raised with the Minister in our previous discussion in respect of the waiver and the clarity I was seeking regarding issues not covered by the scheme not being covered by the waiver, as they should not be. This query was not addressed. What I did see in the Minister's response, though, was a lot of new language being used that is not reflected in the Bill but which to me sends a worrying signal about the potential intentions of the Government in respect of that waiver. Regarding the phrase "all-encompassing general payment", there is no such all-encompassing general payment referred to in the Bill. There is a "general payment" in the Bill and, as defined in the text, it is specifically a payment in respect of sections 18(1), 18(2) and 18(3). These address "payment in respect of the number of days, referred to in column 2of Schedule 3...during which [a] person was so resident".

Let us be clear about this. The general payment is directly a payment in respect of the number of days according to a certain column in the legislation. It is not all-encompassing. It is not a recognition of the language which was just used concerning, for example, recognition of the trauma, recognition of the terrible experiences and the holistic and different circumstances suffered. These aspects do not feature at all. Maybe, in the minds of those creating this, it is felt they are doing this instead. Let us be clear, however, a general payment is being undertaken instead of a payment that recognises all these factors affecting the people concerned, such as being subjected to a vaccine trial, having experienced forced family separation or having experienced additional prejudices in terms of those subjected to racial discrimination and others. In the calculus applied in terms of this payment, there is no mechanism and no measure in respect of those experiences I mentioned. This is a choice, and it is the choice the Government has made, to go with a general payment and not a payment that addresses various complex issues, traumas and factors.

What I am really concerned about is that in some of the language used in the Minister's speech just now, there was the suggestion - again I do not know where this line is coming from - that all these things are somehow bundled in and can be condensed into an algorithm that just looks at days. The fact is the Minister has chosen a basic calculus based on days. He has chosen not to address the many factors that people told him mattered. It is critically important, therefore, to be very clear about the waiver. Again, this was not addressed and the Minister had said he would come back to me in writing regarding this aspect. Indeed, he was requested by Members on the Government side to respond to the whole Chamber on this point. We have not, however, had a response with language and clarification in respect of the waiver.

To be clear, this new phrase, "all-encompassing general payment", and simply saying this on the record, does not make it an all-encompassing general payment. The "general payment" is defined clearly in the Bill and it is simply about the days. Let us be clear about this point and it is an important one to clarify. It will also be important to ensure that people who may get this general payment in respect of the days will be, should be and legally potentially are under the Bill - it would be good to get this clarification - entitled to seek justice in respect of the other issues they experienced that are not reflected in this calculus or definition. No amount of throwing additional adjectives in front of "general payment", which are not in the Bill, will make it be the case that they are there. This is an important aspect.

In terms of amendments Nos. 35 and 36, we had again requested additional information. I do not know if the Minister has additional information in respect of those who took cases and accepted settlements.Are the amounts they received more than they would get under this scheme? Are they less than they would get under the scheme? We cannot speak to individual cases. In some cases, people are being required not to speak about their settlements. Is it the case, however, that there are those who took a very laborious route through the courts, which most people do not want to do, and were awarded settlements that will amount to less than they would potentially get under this scheme? How many are affected? That is the question. As I have indicated, I am quite happy to nuance this amendment, and we can come back with it on Report Stage. We are really trying to find out if that is an issue and how many people are affected by it if it is.

In respect of amendment No. 36, if not now, when? As to whether this is the right place to address the matter, why not now? Why not send a signal, even if only to strengthen the Minister's hand and the hand of the new negotiator he has appointed? Why not seize the opportunity to go into those discussions with GSK and other pharma companies and the religious orders and congregations and say he is mandated by the Oireachtas to pursue this issue? The Minister will be aware that the amendment seeks to recognise the point he made, which is that he does not know whether these contributions should be going directly into this scheme or whether there should be an additional scheme. The amendment also seeks to provide that there may be an additional fund so it gives scope for an additional strand, which would leave intact the scheme as it is planned to operate but would be an additional top-up fund. That is a useful mechanism. Does it not strengthen the State's hand if, going through the Legislature, we signal our intention to have reports looking at our legal options? That is what the amendment states about the report. It states that the State will look at its legal options in respect of requiring contributions. These orders and congregations and corporations seem very confident and happy in playing hardball and looking somehow for concessions from the State. What do they expect the State to give them in negotiations? Certainly not an indemnity, I hope, or some kind of get-out-free card. Why not indicate that the State will look at all kinds of legal options and, as mandated by the Oireachtas and the representatives of the public of Ireland, pursue legal options where we do not have co-operation? Does that not strengthen the Minister's hands and the hands of others in these negotiations?

I really encourage the Minister to consider, in respect of amendment No. 36, or any other version of the amendment that might come, how we can strengthen the hand of the State in these negotiations. I would like clarity on amendment No. 34 and I ask, in respect of amendment No. 35, because that was one the did not really address, if he will indicate how many may be affected by that potential loophole.