Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Ruane for her amendments. I fundamentally disagree with the argument she is making that a scheme requiring evidence to be brought forward and risking the retraumatisation of survivors is preferable.We know from international experience and domestically from people who have used the mechanisms, such as the residential institutions redress scheme, that individualised schemes have been harshly criticised by survivors who had to use those processes and especially that requirement to provide evidence. I accept there is a difference of view there. I believe that a scheme whereby accessibility to the benefits of the scheme are achieved through the length of time spent there with no more required to be proved is vastly preferable to asking survivors to give evidence. Even if it is a two-track, two-tier or a twin approach, an additional approach opens the possibility of more but it has to be evidenced in some approach. If it is going to be an additional approach, it will be difficult to achieve that evidential burden and particularly in light of the length of time and the span of time we are dealing with in many of these cases. Having opened to people the prospect of additional benefit, it may then be closed to them. I do not think that is the right way to proceed. I accept that Senator Ruane and other Senators have a different view.

I am not in a position to accept the amendments. I spoke to very similar amendments on Committee Stage. I recognise that the time period has been changed within them. Again, as I said in response to our last amendment, I really believe that this legislation and any reports written on foot of it, must be based on what this legislation has covered and must be within the agreed scope of this particular scheme. As the Senator articulated, the amendments seek reports on the potential to extend the eligibility for the scheme with regard to the general payment and the enhanced medical card for those who were resident in a relevant institution for less than 180 days, and with regard to the work-related payment for those who were resident in the relevant institution for less than 90 days. I have set out the reasoning behind the non-adversarial approach that is based on access to the scheme.

As the scheme is set up, the focus must be on answering and delivering for the tens of thousands of people who will apply to this scheme. This is why I believe all those working in the executive office should be focused on operating the scheme and making sure that as quickly as practicable we can get applications in and that they can be assessed, and if extra information is needed or if there are no records of that particular person, then the affidavits can be sought. I believe this to be the best focus. We must remember that any of these amendments can be made in the future. This legislation can be amended and legislation can be changed, as we all know. For now it is important to get this scheme up and running, get this legislation passed, get the scheme operational, and allow the benefits of the scheme to be available to the 34,000 people we estimate can benefit from it.