Mr. Carl Buckley:

I am in danger of repeating a lot of what was said in the earlier sessions. The biggest problem with this legislation is that it is full of ambiguity. It needs so much more certainty. It is not victim-centric and there is a very real risk that the numerous loopholes within the legislation can be exercised in favour of those other than victims. There is a distinct sense that it is ripe for political interference in that there is a requirement for a sponsoring Minister in head 3. In respect of head 3 and the circumstances where an agency can be appointed, where is the balance of interests as far as victims and others are concerned? The criteria for intervention are too restrictive. Head 6 in respect of memorialisation has already been raised. Memorialisation without intervention is given to Government Ministers. With all due respect, that is not a question for Government Ministers. It is a question for victims.

As has been alluded to by Ms Corrigan and others throughout today's hearings, all of the issues are being taken out of the hands of victims and that is not where this should be. This should be in their hands and nobody else's. Failure to do so infringes the Government's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. We have already heard about Articles 2, 3 and 8. Effectively, what we are dealing with Tuam and the other mother and baby homes is an atrocity crime and we must be quite clear that it amounts to a crime against humanity. That is where the focus should be - on the victims and an investigation into what happened, and not attempting to take it out of their hands and covering it further.