Professor Phil Scraton:

I will come back to that last question. First, in regard to 70 years, I do not know where that figure has come from, I do not know who dreamt it up or why, but I am sure there will be an administrative explanation. There should be no exclusion. I do not believe we can put a time limit on suffering and I do not believe we can put a time limit on lack of knowledge in regard to death.

Second, a really important issue was raised about the cost and scope. I have heard this discussion so many times in regard to issues around mass death. We heard it in the North of Ireland and we heard it over the investigation into Hillsborough, which cost millions of pounds. The most expensive investigation in British legal history was into Hillsborough, which was just people dying at a football match. The important issue for me here is that it will cost what it takes. This was made very clear by the families. I do not think we can put a price on truth or put a price on accountability. While I acknowledge absolutely that this will be unprecedented in its cost, in its organisation and in its structure, I think it is a price that will have to be paid. There is no question in my mind about that.

The next point, the issue around accountability, truth-telling and reparations, is a very important one. We have seen it here in the North but that system and process are not ideal either. Dr. O’Rourke and I are currently involved in establishing an investigation here in the North into the mother and baby and Magdalen institutions. What is so important to gain is that we see this outside of the notion of reparation as simply a material value. Reparation is as much about knowledge as it is about value and I agree entirely with Deputy Sherlock’s point that accountability is central to that in the information gathering.

If the proposed Bill goes ahead in its present state, it will breach Article 2 of the European convention. There is no question in my mind about that. I know that view is shared by Dr. O’Rourke and the other signatories to our submission. Article 2 takes the whole process to a quite different level. It is an obligation and it imposes a series of obligations on the State. However this is structured - I believe it has to be a relationship between a new agency and the current coroner’s role - we have to accept that the coronial process in Ireland is not fit for purpose, even in its ordinary everyday workings. Our report, which will come out next week, will demonstrate that. Having said that, coronial investigation is crucial and central to each and every one of these identifiable deaths. Therefore, the process has to connect the families who are suffering this appalling loss over time and accommodate that in the context of a full and thorough investigation. This takes me right back to the point on which we started, namely, that the specific circumstances of how each individual died are crucial to every family. That is the point of an inquest and it is what an Article 2 inquest would seek to uncover. It would meet, therefore, the Irish State’s human rights and domestic obligations.