On Sunday, it was illegal charges to older persons in nursing home care over the course of three decades. Last night, it was the removal of the DPMA from up to 12,000 vulnerable people in institutional care. Perhaps tomorrow we will see yet another story of a group of people being failed by the State. However, this is a much bigger story. The real story, as we see it, is the pervasiveness of what amounts to a callous legal strategy. In essence, the State approaches litigation against it in a manner indistinguishable from any faceless corporate entity. It is a war of attrition against those who dare to sue it. The route is well worn. People are denied legal rights unless they sue the State. If they do litigate, the cases are defended by the State and then, late in the day, prior to making discovery and certainly prior to going into trial, those with the resources and patience to keep going receive a settlement to avoid the setting of an adverse precedent that others could rely on in future. It happens everywhere. We have seen it in special educational needs cases, immigration cases and medico-legal cases against the State. It is also in the approach taken to those excluded from State redress schemes, such as those who have been subjected to sexual abuse in some schools, and to those affected by the Thalidomide scandal, on whose behalf I have been calling for a redress scheme for months. Again, this is a legacy issue that must be resolved by the Government.

It is darkly ironic that we are debating this issue today in anticipation of the debate later this afternoon on the mother and baby homes scheme, a redress scheme that is certain to exclude large swathes of people who were victimised by church and State throughout the last century. The context changes, but the results stay the same. People who can endure the cost and stress of years of litigation will get their legal rights, but those who cannot afford that, will not.

The Taoiseach has described this as a "legitimate legal strategy" but, rather than the vindication of rights, this is a "cost-containment" strategy, which takes priority for the Government. I have seen this in operation as a barrister where I acted for children from disadvantaged communities who were at severe risk of harm and who had been deprived of the care and support they needed. The only way to get the support they needed was to sue the State and show a readiness to go to trial. That is no way to treat vulnerable people who are being let down by the system. Those children who did not litigate did not receive any supports. The Judiciary was highly critical of that. This must be a watershed moment to see how we can ensure a change in Government policy. We ask the Taoiseach to call on Secretaries General of all Departments to come before the Committee of Public Accounts to attest to the legal strategy in place in each Department as regards litigation against the State. Is that initiative something the Taoiseach would support?

Second, would he support a re-evaluation of the role of the Attorney General to ensure he or she must take into account the common good or public interest as well as the more narrow financial interests of the Government of the day?

It is very easy to lump all these different cases and issues together and say they are all the same. They are not. They are quite different. For example, when it comes to the nursing home charges issue, the legal advice from the Attorney General is very different from his legal advice on the DPMA.

Sure.

I do not think it is right to-----

The strategy is the same.

The litigation strategy is the same.

-----put them all together.

Could the Deputies please not interrupt?

I am coming to that. I have been a member of three governments now, including a Government involving the Labour Party. We have put a huge amount of time, care and resources into putting right some of the wrongs of the past, even where there is no legal liability on the State. We have put in place a compensation scheme, for example, for symphysiotomy. In that case, the survivors went to court and they lost their case. Even though they lost their case in court, the Government decided anyway to set up a compensation scheme, which we did. Another scheme that we set up was for the Magdalen laundries, and we are setting one up for the mother and baby institutions, mica and pyrite, and apartment block defects. There were no findings of liability at all against the State in those cases.

They were not fought in court. On the contrary, we decided to set up schemes to help those people because we thought that was the right and just thing to do. How the Deputy is characterising this is not fair. She is taking a few examples and extrapolating those to every issue that has arisen. That is not fair at all. We set up those compensation schemes because they were the right thing to do and not because we lost, or were at risk of losing, court cases.

The Government has a responsibility to do what is right and just. We also have a responsibility to protect the taxpayer and the common good. We cannot spend the same euro twice. We want the education budget to be spent on educating children and young people today, we want the health budget to be spent on people who are sick and need medicine today, and we want the budget for children to be spent on children who are vulnerable today. If too much of today's budget is diverted to fixing the problems of the past, that has consequences. Governments and Ministers have to strike a balance between the future and the past. We try to strike that balance as fairly as possible.

The Taoiseach's response indicates exactly the point I am making, namely, that the Government of the day is not merely another defendant and it is not appropriate for any government to act simply as another corporate defendant. The Government must of course, as a democratically elected government, reflect and respect the rights and wishes of the people and the common good. That is precisely why the Labour Party is calling for reform of the Office of the Attorney General. This is not only in order for the Government to review the State's litigation strategy to ensure that the State and the government of the day are acting in the common good across all the cases where people have been done injustice and where people deserve redress. We are also asking, in order to guard against future similar litigation strategies being adopted against similarly vulnerable groups of people, for a review of the role of the Attorney General.

We are preparing a Bill that will not only ensure that the Attorney General's office will take regard of the common good and the public interest, as well as the narrow interest of government, but will also look at the publication of the advice of the Attorney General in specific cases. It is not always appropriate for the Attorney General's advice to remain confidential or for the person holding that position simply to act as if he or she is a lawyer advising a private client. The government of the day has a duty to reflect the wishes of the people and to act in the common good. The Taoiseach has acknowledged that and it is precisely the point I am making.

I acknowledge that it is the role of the Government to act in the common good. We may disagree on what the common good is from time to time. I accept it is the responsibility of the Government to act within the common good, which is why I do not accept this charge that has been made, namely, that the Government only does the right thing when it is dragged to court or loses a court case.

That is the record.

I have given the Deputy several examples of cases where the Government put a redress scheme in place, even though the case was lost in court. Symphysiotomy is one example of that. The Government also decided to put in place compensation schemes in respect of mother and baby institutions, Magdalen laundries, mica, pyrite and apartment block defects, despite the fact that there was never a finding against the State with regard to those matters.

What is the common good? The common good has to take into account what is right and just. It also has to protect the taxpayer and look at what is the broad common interest. Yes, we want to put right the wrongs of the past but we need to bear in mind that there are demands now and for the future. With the best will in the world, no matter what the financial position is for any Government, it can only spend the same euro once. As much as possible, we want budgets to be spent helping people who need that help today. That is the judgment call people have to make.