Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)

I am a little disappointed by the Minister's response about the use of waivers. We need to be clear. When we hear about redress schemes, they are usually accompanied by apologies and sincere expressions of how sorry we are as a State. The Minister then says these are there to replace legal action. Are these redress schemes about recognising we have done wrong as a State, and that we owe something to people for having done some things wrong, or are they to protect the State against actions and against individual cases being taken? The Minister said that the redress schemes are a substitute for legal action and so forth. I thought the purpose of redress schemes was to try to make up, in some small, inadequate way, to those who have been wronged and to give something back to them. That is why the question about waivers is: why do that and then take away with the other hand their legal rights, rights that anybody else would have with regard to civil liability or other areas?The Minister has just said that the Government intends to continue with that policy. I believe that policy needs to be reviewed. I urge the Minister to reflect on it and the logic of it.

Then there is this thing of there having to be criteria. There have to be, but this amendment is about applying, examining and considering best practice. Is it best practice to have criteria that are based on how we can minimise the cost? That was the logic of excluding those who spent six months in an institution, the mothers who gave birth there, and the children whose first few months of their lives took place in a situation of misery and abuse. Maybe it is because they cannot talk or we hope they will not remember. That was an arbitrary drawing of a line. When we ask the Minister for a review, we are asking in good conscience for her to really think about how waivers have been used. Reference was made to only those in the system already. The Minister should be looking at who did not benefit from these schemes or who did apply to them because they did not want to sign a waiver, were intimidated out of applying or came across a hostile first point of contact within the scheme. That is what I mean by "learning". From the Minister's response, I am less confident now that the State is willing to start learning on these issues.