I would also like to be associated with those comments.

The Taoiseach does not need me to remind him of the damage that was done to children in Kerry during the CAMHS overdosing of children. For example, children with social anxieties were given anti-psychotic medication.

Even the most vulnerable of children with intellectual disabilities and autism were given polypharmacy, leading to long-term physical and mental damage.

For years, we, in Sinn Féin, and many other people have been saying that anybody who has received an apology, where liability is therefore not an issue, should be allowed into the scheme for compensation. If they are not in the scheme, they are doubly punished - apart from all of the dosing - by not being able to access money to pay for medical reports and private therapies.

Today, we see the news that a lawyer representing some people has applied to the High Court to take a case where siblings are included while other brothers and sisters are not and where neighbours are included while other neighbours are not. Where there is an apology, everybody should be included in the scheme so they are not doubly punished-----

Deputy Daly should conclude. The Taoiseach to respond.

-----and the time limits should be abolished. This case should be looked at rather than spending more money that is not there in defending it.

I do not believe there is any need for the High Court case. It will only ramp up costs on all sides. No affected young person is being excluded from the scheme. A small number of cases have not been excluded but are being progressed through the further file review. These would have been patients who had previously received open disclosure letters through previous ad hoc independent reviews. It has always been the intention that they would be included in the compensation scheme and they have been prioritised in the current review process so they can be among the first invited to apply when formal notifications issue.

To be fair to the Minister - and I was involved as Taoiseach at the time this first arose - we moved very quickly to ease trauma on families in terms of the redress side of it.

I disagree with that.

We did not wait for cases or anything. We just brought in a non-adversarial compensatory framework which, I think, has been the better way to do things.

It was brought in after many lot of years.