Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 7, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

"(iii) where cases do not proceed to full inquiry this shall be on the basis of clear and objective criteria, decided in consultation with representative groups,".

These amendments seek to secure clear information for the public. The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse must give victims the greatest possible opportunity to have their cases heard and the public must be informed regarding the operation of the commission. Amendment No. 3 attempts to achieve that objective.

The Act is being amended to remove the obligation on the investigating committee to hear all complaints and it gives discretion as to which witnesses it considers should be called to a full hearing. If there is discretion over why they should be called to a hearing, we want to know the criteria used. Where cases do not proceed to a full hearing, it should be on the basis of a clear and objective criteria decided in consultation with the representative groups. This is the rationale behind the amendment. The criteria on which the decisions may be based is not outlined in the legislation and it is important that it is made clear.

Amendment No. 4 would allow the criteria for deciding which cases may not proceed to full inquiry to be published and made available to the public. This seeks to throw more light on the proceedings of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. In seeking to ensure that the criteria for deciding which cases proceed to the full inquiry are published, and thereby made available to the public, either in print or electronically, this amendment seeks to ensure that the victims and the wider public are informed as to how decisions are being made by the commission. Currently it is unclear how these decisions are reached.

In the other House, the Minister indicated why Mr. Justice Ryan deliberately avoided imposing selection criteria in the cases that would receive a full hearing before the investigation committee. He felt it was not possible to develop specific criteria. This was made on the basis that no two situations are the same. Conversely, is the same not true? I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 6 proposes that the criteria for deciding which meetings shall be held in public, shall be agreed with representative groups and made available to the public. This amendment, as with the earlier ones, is submitted in the interests of victims of past abuse and the general public who should have information on the operation of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse.

Amendment No. 8 seeks a clear definition of what is meant by the term "reasonably practicable" as was agreed in the consultations with the representative groups and that it shall be published and made available to the public. The Oireachtas has been asked to prepare legislation which includes the term "reasonably practicable" without any proper definition. It is evident that what is reasonably practicable to one may not be to another. The definition of what is meant by this term must be included.