Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 7, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

"(iii) where cases do not proceed to full inquiry this shall be on the basis of clear and objective criteria, decided in consultation with representative groups,".

I do not wish to rehash the Committee Stage debate on this point, except to state that the points I made then still stand. However, it is important to point out the reasoning behind these amendments, which are broadly similar. When the Taoiseach apologised to victims in 1999, a strong expectation built up that people would have the opportunity to state their cases and get the opportunity to ask questions in some instances. It has been pointed out to me that the vast majority of people who will come before the commission have already stated their case, if one may use that phrase, to some body by now, be it to the Garda, the courts or in some cases, before the commission. However, such people want the opportunity to appear properly before the commission and not simply before a confidential committee for an hour long hearing. This forms an integral part of what the victims, who are what this is about, wanted. The 2000 Act is being amended to remove the obligation on the investigation committee to hear all complaints.

We seek to ensure selection will be made — I suppose people to not want to call it sampling and that "selection" is perhaps a slightly more polite way to put it — on the basis of clear and objective criteria. The Minister referred to Mr. Justice Ryan's statements. I have much faith in what Mr. Justice Ryan will do but I am also conscious that he is the second person in that job and, for one reason or another, somebody else could be in it before the commission completes its work. We must be mindful of that so we cannot rely on any individual no matter how good he or she may be at what he or she does because he or she may not be in the job in the future. It is important clear and objective criteria are laid down so people know why they will or will not get that opportunity which, until this legislation was published, they thought would be afforded to them. That is an important point.

Amendment No. 6 requires that the criteria for deciding which cases may not proceed to full inquiry are published and made available to the public. Again, there is a dual interest here. While the victims should know the reason, there is a broader public interest in this issue. While my focus is primarily on the victims, it is also on the fact that people want to know what happened and how this will proceed.

When we debated this on Committee Stage, different reasons were put forward as to why the criteria should or should not be published. I appreciate the Minister did not want to have this so rigid that we exclude people. That is important but I do not see exclusion occurring on this basis. The criteria do not have to be so tied down that people are excluded, but they should be laid out.

We have also looked for a clear definition of the term "reasonably practicable". That is not defined in the definition section. It leads to changes to what was expected and what was in the 2000 legislation. In the 2000 Act, the function of the commission was to provide for persons who had suffered abuse in institutions an opportunity to recount their abuse and make submissions to the commission. However, the changes here are quite broad and as far as is reasonably practicable, people will have the opportunity to recount the abuse and other relevant experiences undergone by them in institutions. We all have different definitions of "reasonably practicable" and it is important it is tied down so people know what is meant by it.

See this speech in context