Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I, too, have been extraordinarily moved by all of the contributions. I am grateful to Senator Boyhan for his honesty, transparency and passion. Equally, I am always impressed by Senator Higgins's passion. I am conflicted by this legislation as is the Minister. It is not how we want this legislation to be but needs must because time is of the essence.

I oppose the amendment, not because I do not fully agree with confidentiality, as Senator McDowell so eloquently described it, but because I do not believe it is necessary. Mindful of the context, it feels obscene to argue technicalities of law. In saying that, I am referring to what I am about to do, not what Senator McDowell did. I have also received telephone calls and I have wept on the phone as people told me their stories. My family and people with whom I associate are not untouched by this. I need to qualify my argument by making that point.

The 2004 Act was introduced for any type of commission of inquiry. It set in place a series of principles that would allow us to arrive at a conclusion or report that would then be dealt with by a Minister within the confines of the rules set out in the Act. The 2004 Act is strong and good legislation. From 2015 to this day, we have heard reports and stories and the horror of this comes out more and more. Just when we think it could not get any worse, it does. Our culture changed. What I see in the 2015 statutory instrument is a provision for nuance to allow us to arrive at a full and complete story. We know the experiences of the courts when it comes to sexual assault and rape, and the horror of that. Setting up a confidential committee created a system that was outside the normal evidence. The technical definition of evidence is of arriving at a fact on the basis of being tested and cross-examined in an adversarial situation, albeit that adversarial is not always appropriate. The confidential committee provided a place where the stories could be told without fear of being cross-examined, undermined and challenged in the manner in which it is necessary to arrive at what would constitute evidence and what a court would consider evidence. The obligation of the confidential committee, as provided for in the statutory instrument, was that it shall "operate under the direction of and be accountable to the Commission", "provide in its procedures for individuals who wish to have their identity remain confidential" and "produce a report of a general nature on the experiences of the single women and children".

The object of the confidential committee was to fill out the story. All of us would be careful if we were to be cross-examined. Even here, I am nervous about every single word I say because the power and privilege of this House give us the opportunity to either heal or wound the people who are watching this debate. I find that I am nervous for that reason. The confidential committee stripped that away and allowed people to tell their story. Its members could come away afterwards with a full version of events that maybe would not come out if people were to be cross-examined. For this reason, I do not believe it constitutes evidence, nor do I believe it constitutes the records. In my humble opinion, therefore, I consider section 5 adequate to exclude anything that flows from the confidential committee in this context.We do not need to go there because all that is coming out of the confidential committee is the generalised report. I do not believe the amendment is necessary.