Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for being here. I find it hard to fathom how the commission of investigation arrived at some of the statements and findings of fact that it did, as well as the language it used. Given the commission members' qualifications, experience and knowledge, I cannot comprehend how they made some of their statements at all and in some cases without qualifying or contextualising them. I equally do not understand their methodology. I have conducted numerous investigations over the last number of years and I always have a methodology that requires verification by contributors of their statements before I can make findings of fact out of them. We are dealing today with the destruction of the audio recordings. I completely understand deleting the audio recordings where there is a transcript but in the absence of that, which is the purpose of making the recording, I do not understand how that has come about. I acknowledge that I heard about this during the Seanad debate on this matter and it did register with me. Additional hurt has been caused and I acknowledge that. It is unfathomable that the commission members were not minded to the implications of what they did.

There have been calls to extend the life of the commission in order that we can have accountability for the anomalies and the, at times, downright hurtful absurdities involved. As desirable as that is, I am not confident that it is the way forward. One of the big concerns is that we might go to all the trouble of extending the life of the commission and then the members could just resign. We would then have an empty commission with no way of questioning and no method around it. It is an independent statutory body of finite duration. It made flawed or very weak findings of fact when stronger findings could have been made and there are mistakes that clearly need to be rectified. Should we return to it or run it all over again? That would cause significant delay in the release of information, access to information and the Department's control of that information and anything like that would not be acceptable. If the report were amended or we were to run it again and have it say the things I believe it should say and make the suggestions it could make, the key question is whether that would alter how the Minister and the Government responded. There are 22 action points. If we had a different report that drew absolute conclusions, as people would want it to and as could have been drawn, would that have strengthened the response or changed how the Government is responding to it? I am hoping to hear that it would not. The Government has been in a process of listening to survivors and their families and has taken part in the collaborative forum so in that context, the response the Government has given has been the strongest one possible.

We then come down to a number of key questions. How will we ensure that justice is seen to be done by the Government as regards telling people's stories, getting them on the record and being heard? How will the State validate that? That needs to be done in an official manner whereby we listen to and archive the stories and make them available to the public. We must validate that by our actions in order that we have the opportunity to call out the humanity, show leadership and facilitate a healing of sorts. When will we have the legislation on access to information and tracing? What sort of timeline is there around that? What timelines are in place as regards recognition, tax relief on inheritance, care packages and supports? That would give reassurance that we are progressing with the matters over which the State has control. What progress has the Government made with the institutions and seeking contributions from the religious orders?

We also discussed the Minister contacting GlaxoSmithKline. Where are we at in that regard? On the matter of the audio tapes, what actions can we take to ensure that the contributors, not only to the confidential committee but wider than that, will have the opportunity to have their stories told and on the record of the State? I would appreciate answers to those questions.