Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

A number of contributions were made. I have met many families and survivors and, as I said, some of them regard these sites as a grave site and do not wish to see them disturbed at this stage. They would see it as a violation of the sanctity of the remains of their loved ones. In some circumstances, and I acknowledge that on certain sites the preferences are different among survivors, but in some circumstances the preference is a memorial recognising and marking the burial site. This legislation, which as we know is not site specific, has to be sufficiently flexible to allow Government to take account of different circumstances and differing views which may arise in the future. I have considered the pre-legislative scrutiny recommendations on this specific issue, and in light of these, the provision in the legislation has been amended to specify the Government must have substantive reasons to form the view that memorialisation of the burials on the land without further intervention is the more appropriate route to take. This provision is not designed to allow the Government to refrain from intervention. The Government will have to set out clearly the reasons for choosing memorialisation, and the rationale has to be sufficient with reference to some technical difficulties that would be such as to justify adequately the decision not to make an order.

In regard to amendments Nos. 15 and 16, section 7 specifies that the Government may establish the office for a specific period to allow it intervene at a site associated with an institution that contains manifestly inappropriate burials. To help ensure the office's effective operation and to adjust to the evolving situation at a particular site, the relevant Minister may need to alter the functions of the director. As such those proposals would need to be approved by Government.

I reiterate that the provision is not designed to prevent the director from undertaking a certain activity. In fact, any such proposal is based on information provided by the director himself or herself, which must be taken into account by the Minister. The provision. in effect, allows for adapting the work of the office in line with a request from the director. This in turn reflects the reality that, at the outset of an intervention, there is likely to be a high degree of uncertainty as to what the director and his or her office will encounter. If the provisions were removed as suggested the director may be legally required to perform a function that cannot in reality be implemented. For example, it is possible that the function of an identification programme is assigned to the director at the outset, but if there were no living relatives willing to come forward to participate in that programme, that programme would have no function. In this case an identification programme might no longer be feasible. However, if we had not the capacity to amend the range of functions that could take place, the director would still be legally obliged to undertake the DNA identification programme, even if it was no longer practically feasible to do.

See this speech in context