Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)

I came in especially to listen; I did not think my turn would come up today. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for his contribution and dedication on this, as well as the Acting Chair who took over, Deputy Fleming. I thank the whistleblowers. I thank the Minister for rearranging the debate.

In her opening speech, she said at the heart of the report was Grace. I cannot think of anything more inaccurate than that because Grace is certainly not at the heart of this report. I understood I would speak next week, but in preparation for the debate I went back over all of the reports, which the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is very familiar with, including the Devine, Dignam and Resilience reports and the personnel who previously worked for the health executive, something the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has pointed out. A company was formed that investigated itself. The publication of all of those reports was delayed and no reason has been outlined as to why that happened. Reasons were given, such as delays caused by Garda investigations. That was not confirmed in any of what I read.

We have the brave social workers. Not only do we have a pseudonym for Grace, but we now have to have pseudonyms for whistleblowers such is the state of fear, horror and regret that this whole thing has engendered. Whistleblowers have come forward to tell us that they would never do so again and have lost so much. These are all very serious issues.

We had inane comments from the Taoiseach, who spoke about these types of inquiry. I agree with the reservations, but that is not the issue. The current issue is how we got to this point.

I do not usually refer to my phone, but I will refer to the High Court judgment when a settlement of €3.6 million was reached. Mr. Justice Peter Kelly put a face on this woman, Grace, as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has done. As well as outlining the facts that have already been outlined, Mr. Justice Kelly said it remained a mystery why the decision to remove her – "her" being Grace – against which the foster family made representations to the Minister for Health, was not acted on. We must remember that the foster parents made representations to the Minister for Health. I may have a chance to go back to that point. The judge said it remained a mystery why that decision was not acted on and was later reversed by a three-person health board committee. Of course, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle may remember that there was a lot of interplay at two meetings of the Committees of Public Accounts on who exactly was on the panel and whether they still worked for the health executive. We were told they did not, but subsequently found out they did.

Mr. Justice Peter Kelly went on to say that were it not for the fact that a commission of investigation had been set up, he would have insisted on answers to many questions, including what extraordinary hold the foster family had over the health board committee that led to Grace being left with a family in the teeth of professional and social work advice. He went on to say that he hoped the commission would get to the bottom of this. Had the commission not been set up, Mr. Justice Kelly would probably have done a better job in getting to the reasons as to why he felt he could rule on a settlement of €3.6 million for Grace.

We have a commission that tells us what we already know, namely, that Grace's general care and hygiene were not up to standard. She had seven teeth removed. We needed a commission to tell us that, when that had been outlined clearly in all of the reports, whatever their deficits. However, it was outlined more acutely by the whistleblowers who were utterly ignored.

The major finding was that there was an absence of oversight and monitoring. These are what I would call the positive findings of fact that we already knew from the social workers, the reports that were hidden and subsequently came to light, and the information that was extracted over and over again. I ask for forgiveness for my bad imagery regarding extracting teeth, particularly in the context of Grace, who had seven teeth extracted.

There was a finding that there was no evidence of sexual or emotional abuse. I have no understanding of what the person in charge of the commission understands by the words "emotional abuse", if that does not cover what she actually found. It is an extraordinary conclusion.

I do not think we are ready to decide where we go from this commission. In light of the horror of what has happened to Grace and the other 47 people in the home who have been completely ignored, I do not think we can make decisions here today. It is our duty to look at what has happened, analyse what the report has found and ask how the commission could come to that decision.

The Minister spoke about meeting the General Solicitor for Minors and Wards of Court regarding the latter's unprecedented statements, which I welcome. She confirmed that she met yesterday with her, who confirmed that considered and extensive submissions were made on behalf of Grace to the commission of investigation. That in itself is extraordinary. I commend the Minister on meeting the solicitor. The Minister utterly failed to tell us what the woman said, how it was conveyed or what led her to make those unprecedented statements.

The Minister went on to say that the general solicitor also highlighted potential learnings. What were those learnings? What was outlined to the Minister that led to that unprecedented statement? I do not like the word "learnings" and am not going to use it. What was outlined to the Minister? Perhaps she could tell us that. In what manner was it outlined to her? At what stage did it come to the solicitor's attention that her submissions were not included in the report?

12 o’clock

Was a draft report sent to people for their approval? I am not sure how much time I have left, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

See this speech in context