Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I support the motion. Like my colleagues, I will raise the issue of the promised independent review of testimony. We have Elaine Loughlin and Conall Ó Fátharta of the Irish Examinerto thank for the report in that newspaper dated 29 August in which it was said that "A promised independent review of testimony given by mother and baby home survivors has now been abandoned by the Government." I understand that the Minister is speaking directly to a motion in respect of the creation of the office of director of authorised intervention in respect of Tuam.

However, this would have been the first opportunity since this news broke in August for the Minister to make some utterance to the House in respect of why the promised independent review of testimony has now been abandoned. For many people, whether in Tuam, Bessborough, or wherever, that is the kernel of the issue right now. They feel deeply traumatised by the fact that the independent review is not now going to take place. It is for us to speak for those people. It is a bit of a stretch to ask those people who have given testimony already to now create a new initiative. I will quote from the Minister's adviser, who I assume issued the statement. It read:

Having considered the matter, the minister believes that a new initiative to support survivors to tell their personal story, so that it can be formally recorded and accepted as part of the official record, provides the best opportunity for responding to the concerns of survivors in a meaningful way.

To expect a person who has already given evidence to now submit evidence again is an insult to those people. I cannot for the life of me see how the creation of a museum or a national centre for research and remembrance will have the confidence of those very people who have given evidence and who feel their efforts and the sheer trauma they had to go through to tell their stories have been abandoned and disregarded. I was very hopeful that we were on a pathway with this process and that by at least putting in place an independent review of the testimony, the Minister would have repaired the damage done and people would have moved in the same direction going forward. Until such time as that issue is dealt with and confronted, and until an independent review is carried out of testimony, nobody is going to have any confidence whatsoever in the process. The entirety of the process is now tainted.

I was hopeful that our generation of politicians would have dealt with this head-on. When we were in the national convention centre I said I hoped this would not come down to an issue of money and resources. I fear now that that is where this is at. I am fearful that the Minister is afraid to reopen this process again on the basis of resources and what type of potential litigation might take place as a result of the reopening of such a process. I do not think we should be so cautious. We should be the generation of politicians that deal with this head-on. We owe a duty of care to everybody who was involved in this issue to at least, as a mark of respect, carry out the independent review of testimony. There is a question for the Minister in respect of the proposed memorandum to go to Cabinet. As an institution, whether on the floor of this House or in committee, we need to provide some forum where the Minister can come before us to answer questions about why a process to create that independent review of testimony was abandoned. What were the modalities of that? This is unfinished business.

See this speech in context