Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Social Democrats for using their time to put the spotlight on this topic. We need more than a spotlight. Continued light must be shone on it through the democratic process of Deputies asking questions and getting answers. I am afraid that I am not reassured by the Minister. I have a difficulty when things are personalised, but something somewhere is very wrong in the Minister's Department. Looking at his speech, the term "weasel words" comes to mind - absolute weasel words. We deserve more than that, but those who went forward and took their courage in their hands deserve much more than that.

I have checked and I raised this matter on 4 February, 10 February, 11 February and 17 February. I was told that the evidence was gone. Why was it gone? To protect people's confidentiality. That was a terrible reply. As the Minister well knows, people's confidentiality can be protected in many ways. Indeed, of the approximately 550 people who came forward, only a small group - I believe it was 60 - asked for their anonymity to be to the fore. That tells us that overwhelmingly, people came forward and asked for their stories to be published and for people to listen to them.

Not alone were those stories not published but lies were told. I use that word very advisedly. Lies were told that the evidence was destroyed. Now we find out, at the last minute, that it was not destroyed. That in itself raises questions about the whole issue of trust around this process. If a commission of inquiry tells us on page 11 of its confidential report that the evidence was destroyed and it turns out there are backup tapes that it did not tell us about, that brings the whole trust aspect into question. The Minister has not mentioned that today. It is pretty serious that we were told on page 11 of the report, in patronising, patriarchal language, that this was being done for the good of the survivors.

The Minister used weasel words in saying he will not oppose the motion. What is he proposing to do? Will he extend the term of the commission for the time necessary? I am not sure I understand the sentiment behind what he is saying An extension of a year is not necessary. I am firmly of the belief that a commission of inquiry is independent, but this is beyond the issue of independence. There are serious, practical questions to be answered. How is it that we were told the evidence was destroyed and then told it was not destroyed? On what legal basis was that done and how much time is necessary to address it? Is the Minister happy to step into the shoes of the commission, as the most important person in the Government in this matter, if there is a judicial review? Will he clarify that for us? Will he clarify when the transcripts will be written up from the tapes, by whom that will be done and when they will be available?

Those are the two issues I want to see addressed. First, there must be a body there that can be the subject of a judicial review, notwithstanding how difficult such a review is to initiate for ordinary people. I ask the Minister to take his courage in his hands and clarify that today. It is not what I deserve; it is what the people deserve. Second, when will the testimonies be written out and the transcripts made available? When will the report on the St. Patrick's Guild home be published? When will the Minister tell us the result of his investigation into the leak of the report? When will he tell us whether everybody who has asked for a copy of the report has received one? When will the report go to the libraries? How can he ask people to rectify their testimony if, first, they do not have a copy of the report and, second, they do not have a copy of the transcript of the recording? For God's sake - again, I am using the word "God" - it is clear that we have a person or a group of people in the Department telling people what is best and not learning anything at all. It is the Minister's role to take charge in this matter, unfortunately or perhaps fortunately. He might embrace that role and begin to lead. I have told him before that he will have my full support if he leads. What he is doing is not leading. We are hearing weasel words again, the same weasel words that were used in the report.

I conclude by referring to an interview I heard yesterday with a former Supreme Court judge relating to an article in The Irish Timesthe previous day. The content of it shocked me to my core and I thought I was old enough not to be shocked. The content of that newspaper report is truly shocking. It is clear that the troops have been rounded up and the boys' club is in operation. Unfortunately, on this occasion, there are also women in the boys' club protecting what should not be protected.

See this speech in context