Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

We also discussed this matter fully on Committee Stage. While we are the legislators and determine what goes into law, that should be done from the point of view of ensuring the legislation is workable and will work well. For that reason we are guided by some of the views of Mr. Justice Ryan and of the members of his commission who are doing this work on a day to day basis. When he reviewed the workings of the commission he deliberately avoided imposing selection criteria for cases that would receive the full hearing before the investigation committee. He believed that not only would it be invidious but probably impossible to do so. I did not hear any Member ask what are the criteria one could use. The reality is that the absence of criteria gives the members of the commission great flexibility in who they can call. There is no such thing as having a quota whereby they would call only X number of people, but they have a requirement to be able to get a complete picture of life in a particular school over the 30 year period under investigation. Therefore, they have to cover the range of complaints, experiences etc., and establish who are the people who can give them the best picture of that.

Members of the commission have proposed that the investigation commission will interview each of the people who have decided to continue participating in the inquiry. That process had already commenced and is being conducted by members of the inquiry. The amendment to section 4(6) of the principal Act will allow the investigation committee to select so many people for the hearing to enable them to get a comprehensive picture of what happened.

Regarding amendments Nos. 10 and 11, the purpose of section 6 is to allow the investigation committee to hold meetings in public. It will also be able to hold joint hearings which can be attended by survivors and their representatives and respondents and their representatives. In both cases, the investigation committee will be entitled to work in this way whenever it considers it appropriate. To require it to agree the criteria for holding public or joint hearings with representative groups would undermine the independence of the committee and limit its discretion which it must still by law exercise in a reasonable manner. Only the commission can make a decision as to whether a hearing should be held in public based on the information it has on the content and the purpose of the hearing. For that reason I cannot accept these amendments.

The commission will act the same way as any other tribunal or inquiry. It will hear evidence on oath from witnesses who have relevant testimony to give and collect documentary material which it will analyse. When sufficient information has been obtained the inquiry members will assess the evidential material and come to conclusions. Only the commission can decide when it has enough evidence. It can only decide this as the hearing process progresses. Requirements will vary depending on the institution being investigated and the level of acceptance by the respondents on the results of the interview process.

Regarding amendment No. 13, section 7 is intended to allow the investigation committee to call before it people whose accounts it considers will provide it with the greatest possibility of arriving at the truth of what occurred. It is important that the commission has appropriate discretion in carrying out its functions. There are likely to be complainants whose allegations are incapable of leading to a finding of abuse. Requiring the investigating committee to agree in advance with representative groups the circumstances in which this will arise would be an impossible task and one which would hamper its work and independence. For that reason, I do not propose to accept this amendment.

As to what will happen in reality, the commission indicates it is its intention in respect of the great majority of the institutions it is investigating to call to give evidence everybody who wants to do so, but there are five homes which are simply too large to enable it to do that, namely Ferryhouse, Upton, Daingean, Letterfrack and Artane. The investigation committee proposes to hear every witness in every school it investigates with the exception of those five. Not only would it be impractical and difficult to do that in respect of those five homes but it would be unnecessary for it to get what it needs to establish the full picture of what occurred. That is what we are asking it to do. The investigation committee will call whoever its considers can give it the best picture of life as it was over that 30 year period. For example, it does not want to call 20 people from the 1930s and not call anybody from the 1940s or to call 20 people from the 1940s and not call anybody from the 1950s. It needs to have that kind of flexibility over the investigation. It needs to be able to establish the people who are willing to give evidence — that is the reason the first interview takes place — and how much of that will be necessary to hear fully. There is no quota system. The investigation committee can hear some evidence and then decide it wants to hear more, and the way we have dealt with this gives it the flexibility to do that. We are not being too specific on criteria because there might be a difference in how one would apply such to one school over another. The investigation committee aims to be as inclusive as possible to allow it to do its work properly. However, it must be pointed out that everybody concerned will be either heard by the investigation committee or interviewed by the legal team and many will undergo both processes. It is not a case that people will not be heard at all.

See this speech in context