Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)

I appreciate the clarity on that.

I thank the Minister for giving us time to have this debate today on this very important issue. I also offer my sympathies to her.

On the publication of the Grace report, I began to read the nearly 2,000-page document. Like many others, I found it difficult and upsetting to read the details of Grace's life.

As the discourse on the report began, I was interested to find that others were also upset, not just by the investigation's findings, which were distressing in themselves, but by the report, namely, its structure, format and how challenging it was to follow. Many people in my constituency of Dublin Rathdown approached me in advance of the publication of the report and afterwards raising these very issues.

As many Deputies have said, the report raises more questions than it answers. If the report's findings were so restrained, what was the reasoning for its publication being delayed nine times? How, after nearly a decade of investigation and more than 300,000 documents, is the reason for overturning Grace's removal from the foster home in 1996 still unknown, an issue raised by many other Deputies today?

Even further, the revelation this week of the High Court General Solicitor for Minors and Wards of Court's public statement generates more frustration at a report that is now clearly inadequate. I welcome that the Government has acted quickly and the Minister will meet the general solicitor to discuss the problems she has raised. I welcome the Government's decision, which is the right one, not to begin the planned phase 2 of the investigation at this time. As investigating the incidents surrounding one child incurred costs of more than €13 million, with unresolved questions, investigating incidents surrounding a further 36 in the same format could only incur exponential costs with, unfortunately, no guaranteed results. This does not mean that justice should end here. It is clear to me and every other Deputy in the House that more must be done. We need to find alternative ways of doing things, a way of investigating in a timely way that delivers results and recommended actions efficiently.

The Commissions of Investigation Act, in particular sections 22 and 24, states the process and requirements for incurring and recovering legal expenses. This clearly requires review, in particular the appropriateness of a single-member commission that can issue written directions to the Minister to pay legal fees. These commissions of investigations were introduced as a less expensive and quicker alternative to tribunals of inquiry, a description that many of us will find difficult to justify for this particular commission.

Now is the time for greater oversight in the establishment, terms of reference and financial implications of these investigations. It is important that we protect those who have suffered injustices. We also need to establish the right conditions to encourage those who want to do right and come forward to feel safe in doing so and believe they will be heard and it will be worthwhile. As somebody who has researched and written about whistleblowers, I am passionate about this particular point. The general dissatisfaction with the commission will, unfortunately, do nothing to encourage people to come forward again. These are the types of thing that discourage people from stepping forward. We need to create the conditions that will make those with information willing to step forward and speak out about the injustice they see.

I want to take this opportunity to second the Taoiseach's statement earlier this week that we need new institutions and a new way of doing investigations efficiently, effectively and in good time so that we can properly address issues in the future.

See this speech in context