Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank all Deputies for their expressions of sympathy with regard to our colleague, Mr. Martin McGuinness, for which we are very grateful. I put on record my own sadness at his passing. He made an enormous contribution to Ireland as a whole and the peace process specifically. I express my condolences to Bernie and his family.

I thank the various Deputies for their contributions to the debate. I will respond to some of the queries and issues raised relating to the motion. I emphasise that this is a motion; it is not legislation. Nobody is under any illusion that when the motion is passed, a truth commission will be established the following morning. Therefore, this is a statement of principles, aspiration and commitment. This is about the House making a firm commitment to establishing a truth commission, what shape such a truth commission would take and the minimum standards that such a commission would involve. If Deputies are committed to the idea of a truth commission, I see nothing in my original motion that would preclude anyone from supporting it.

It has been stated that the motion is too detailed or set in stone but I endeavoured deliberately to leave each clause wide open to ensure there was a high degree of flexibility in terms of whatever institutions would be required to be involved or whatever themes needed to be explored to allow us as wide a latitude as possible in taking the various issues into account as well as the various persons who might have been affected by the abuse of these institutions and the bodies of the State. It is for that reason the clauses were left quite open.

It is important to emphasise there is no suggestion that the commission of investigation would be precluded from completing its work. That is not disputed and it never has been. On numerous occasions, including the past couple of weeks, I have raised the need to publish the long overdue interim report. It is very long overdue, and although it is due to be published quite soon, there are questions as to why it has taken this long. It remains important. This motion emphasises that a commission of investigation would not be adequate. Not only are its terms of reference, which are referred to on a number of occasions, inadequate but the model is flawed. I will return to this.

Deputy Connolly, in an excellent speech, raised the point of accountability, and I wholeheartedly agree on that point. Our motion proposes specifically that the process we advocate should not in any manner impinge upon or conflict with a judicial or criminal process. We want to emphasise our view that the Tuam site should be sealed and the Garda, as well as the coroner, should be involved. We have called on the Minister for Justice and Equality to outline whether the Garda has taken any action on foot of the Tuam revelations.

I will also respond to the Deputy Connolly's point on reconciliation. In some places there have been truth and reconciliation commissions, which are slightly different. Although the model is the same, the principle and the ethos are quite different. In some places a truth and reconciliation commission is appropriate but this was not a conflict between two equal sides. This was a one-sided victimisation and mistreatment of women and children, so there is no obligation or responsibility on the survivors to reconcile with their oppressors.

I will return briefly to the point of the commission of investigation. It is our firm view that the findings of the interim report should be put in place but we should begin the process of developing a truth commission as soon as possible. It would not impinge on the development of a truth commission to allow the work to be completed. The final report of the commission of investigation would offer a very strong platform and basis on which all the issues that were discussed in the commission could be expanded.

There are several specific aspects of the motion that would be neglected if the motion were not passed or if an amended version were passed. There is no doubt in my mind that where we can, we should consider the scope of the terms of reference of the commission of investigation. It is my view and that of many survivors that this commission of investigation is an inadequate model that will not deliver the whole truth or justice. It will not achieve justice for all survivors. We must move away from the approach of prescribed lists, which will always draw the line somewhere and exclude somebody. We must move to a system that is thematic and engages with people on the basis of their experiences and suffering.

In acknowledging that, I am of the view that the motion we pass should contain a clear commitment to establishing a truth commission that would go beyond the commission of investigation in its work. I welcome that several of the amendments contain such a commitment but there must also be minimum standards for such a commission. In particular, the survivors and those participating must have access to their own documentation. It is a cause of great frustration, anger and dismay that persons who have given testimony at the commission of investigation have not been allowed to access that testimony. It is also the case that many are frustrated that they are prevented from giving testimony in a manner which suits them. We need to offer people the option to give testimony or to participate in a truth commission in a manner that suits them, whether that is in public or in private, such as they desire. The survivors must be given discretion in that regard.

The other significant aspect of this motion, which has, to a large extent, been neglected in the debate, relates to the need to ensure that an injunction should be sought in respect of those sites on which there are potential unmarked graves or graves of which we are not aware. There should be a commitment from Government to prevent any interference with those sites. Government intervention is required to prevent any possible development of or interference with those sites that would infringe upon the possibility of examination and investigation in order to establish whether there are unmarked graves. There is a desire to find out more about a number of sites - Donnybrook, Bessborough and elsewhere - and the only motion that will contain a commitment in this regard is that which was originally tabled by my party. I call on those other parties that have tabled amendments to reconsider them because there needs to be a firm commitment from the State that it will not allow the truth relating to the locations and settings to which I refer to be interfered with or, potentially, destroyed or obscured. That is a very important point.

All contributions emphasised the need to listen to survivors. I agree with and wholeheartedly welcome all those contributions and that recognition. It is for this reason that my party proposed in its motion that an advisory committee made up of survivors should be established in order to guide the truth commission at every stage and that it be developed in consultation with survivors every step of the way.

I emphasise that many of the survivors are quite frustrated at this stage. It is worth noting that the truth commission and the commission of investigation, such as they have or may be delivered, are the fruit of many years of campaigning and work on the part of those survivors. There were times, I am sure, when it felt that nobody was listening but, through their own strength, resilience and determination, they achieved the establishment of a commission of investigation. I hope they can achieve much more. However, very many of them are quite frustrated with the commission of investigation as it stands. We will be letting them down and not recognising their frustration if we fail to commit not only to having the commission of investigation conclude its work but also to going far beyond that with a process which engages with them in a way that they can have full confidence in and which ensures that all survivors who had any dealings with any of the institutions involved will be included. We must also ensure that they have full access to their own documentation and testimony. They must be in a position to have full confidence and faith in the process.

See this speech in context