Cathal Byrne (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister to the House today. I begin by commending her on arranging to publish this report on what happened to Grace over a long period. I am speaking on behalf of the Fine Gael Party in the absence of Senator Bradley who cannot be here today.

I will start with something that really struck me as I made my way through reading, as best I could, the almost 2,000 pages of the report. In volume 3 on page 4, it states, "Having regard to Grace’s level of intellectual disability, she was and remains entirely unaware of the work of the Commission or of any inquiry into the circumstances of her life." This was a profoundly sad reflection when all of us are here speaking about her.There has been a 2,000-page report and an investigation over eight years into her life and the circumstances of what happened to her, yet she remains unaware of that, given the extent of her disability. I recognise that, in her contribution, the Minister said she has made inquiries and found that Grace is now in quite a good place and doing well. The fact is that, as the commission report illustrates well, there were decades of systemic neglect, delays and denial in addressing what happened to Grace. It took many whistleblowers coming forward over many years and they were crucial in finally removing Grace from the environment she was in and allowing her to find a home in a better place.

It is important that, as representatives and elected politicians, we discuss this matter in this House today. A light must be shone on these things so we can highlight and illustrate the failures of the past, take lessons from them and not allow them to be repeated. One of the major points that struck me in all of this is the fact that when Grace first moved into the foster home and was placed there, she was ten years of age and, in the next six years, there were no social work visits. For anybody in their early to middle teenage years, from ten to 16, those years are a crucial part of their development. That no social worker visited that house to check in with Grace and see what was happening is unconscionable.

As a father myself, I cannot believe some of the descriptions that are contained in the report. I recognise that the commission is independent and its findings are independent. I recognise that the Government and the agencies involved have apologised to her and recognised the failures of the system over many decades with regard to Grace’s care. There is a serious need for us to get to grips with the key points that were highlighted, in particular the fact there was no recognition of Grace as a person and as somebody with complex needs who needed the benefit of additional care. That was not key and central in what the State was trying to do, and her care in that regard fell far short of what the Constitution would expect and what the Proclamation says about cherishing all the children of the nation equally. That is the exact opposite of what happened here.

As the Minister rightly highlighted, we need to move to a model that prioritises dignity, safety and accountability, one that puts in place safeguards, checks and balances and allows organisations like the HSE, Tusla and the various other stakeholders in this area to be monitored. There will be issues like this in the future. Some might say what has happened here will not happen again but issues will arise in the future, although nobody has knowledge of them at this point. I am a strong believer that, to prevent them, we must have sufficient checks and balances in the system so it is not up to one individual and there is scrutiny and oversight at a rigorous level. I encourage the Minister, in the work she is proposing to do in the coming year to 18 months, to ensure monitoring and oversight are a central aspect of this.

I want to address one of the key discussion points in the commission report, which is that we have really struggled as a country to balance the objective of establishing facts and the issue of costs. In the 1990s and early 2000s, we had tribunals of investigation and inquiry which ran to hundreds of millions of euro. We now have the current model. In 2003, when the commissions of investigation legislation was introduced by the then Minister for Justice and now our Seanad colleague, Senator McDowell, in his speech introducing that legislation, he spoke about how it is essential that the issue of costs of inquiry be addressed. His hope was that the Commissions of Investigation Bill, as it then was, would achieve this without in any way diluting the effectiveness or efficiency of the inquiry and its objective of establishing facts. Unfortunately, in a general sense, we have not achieved that.

Our whole model of operating commissions of investigation which run for years and years, with significant legal fees and a large cost to the taxpayer, while establishing the facts is taking too long and costing too much. The move away from tribunals to commissions of investigation, in my opinion, has not worked and we need to reflect on this. As a Government, another look must be taken at how it is that the State is failing to swiftly and cost-effectively get to grips with ascertaining a set of facts when something goes wrong. These issues will pop up in the future and it is very important there is a mechanism to investigate them. However, it has to be a swifter and more cost-effective model. I do not think the commission of investigation framework we have at the moment has lived up to the hope of Senator McDowell when he introduced that legislation all the way back in 2003.

I recognise the programme for Government commitment to advance disability rights with a new strategy by 2030. It is very important when we are discussing Grace that I conclude where I started. Given Grace's level of disability, unfortunately, she is unaware of what we are discussing today and the fact there was an inquiry into the circumstances of her life. It is important that we constantly put her front and centre in our minds when we discuss this issue.