Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will be very brief. This is a general payment in respect of days. It is not a payment designed in terms of experience. That is a choice that has been made. The issue of the waiver is concerning. The Minister indicated that he would come back to me in writing but what was then looked for, and not solely by me but indeed by Government Members and Senators, was for the whole House to hear clarity on this issue. I would suggest that we need to hear that before we move to Report Stage. It has been over a week since the issue was raised. It would be useful if the Minister could come back to us tomorrow and give clarity on that issue so that not just myself but others across the House, on all sides, who would like clarity on that issue could have it addressed.

It is becoming increasingly clear for me from examining the legislation that this is a general payment in respect of days. It is not framed in terms of any part of the nuance of experience. That is a decision that has been made. That is fine but the Minister spoke about the individualised payment. It is a general payment. It is fine to have said that – well it is not fine; I think it would be better if we had designed the payments to really reflect the nuance and reality of the experience - but it is a choice. In that choice, what is important is that we do not undermine the individual rights, which are separate. This is the general payment of the State acknowledging the wrong it did to people. That is what the redress scheme is. It is the State acknowledging the wrong that it did. That is not the same, in a general sense, as the wrongs done through general policies, which were standard Government policies for very long periods of time. That is not the same as individuals' rights to vindicate their particular and specific experiences and to take actions in respect of those.

The Minister used the phrase "the risk of litigation". Let us be clear. The goal of the scheme should not be to protect the State from the risk of litigation. The goal of the scheme is for the State to show that it is sorry and that it recognises what it did. Those are the goals of a genuine redress scheme. That is certainly the goal of a non-adversarial redress scheme. The question for individuals who might be seeking to vindicate their rights, through whatever actions they may wish to take around aspects of their experience not addressed by the scheme, should be left clearly to each case. To say we are protecting people from litigation is maybe a little bit much for those who may wish to have that right. If there is an issue or injustice people may wish to highlight, maybe not solely for themselves but for others, and it is something they feel strongly about and feel needs to be reflected, like those who initially took those first cases, that right should not be compromised by the fact that the scheme is making a general set of reparations in terms of these general criteria. I am just pulling in that language.

The best thing here would be if we could come back to this, maybe tomorrow, and the Minister were to follow with further information in writing to myself and all the other Senators who are interested. It would be good if we had something more on that issue tomorrow because that will of course affect all of us as legislators as we try to work with the Minister to improve this legislation as it goes through Report Stage.