Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 8 Mar 2017

Vol. 942 No. 1

Commission of Investigation (Certain Matters Relative to Disability Service in the South East and Related Matters): Motion (Resumed)

The following motion was moved by the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Finian McGrath, on Tuesday, 7 March 2017:
That Dáil Éireann:
bearing in mind the specific matters considered by Government to be of significant public concern arising from the case of Grace (pseudonym), who resided in a former foster home in the South East which is the subject of abuse allegations, as detailed in the following reports:
(a) Report of Conal Devine and Associates – Inquiry into Protected Disclosures, SU1 (2012);
(b) Report of Resilience Ireland Ltd. – Disability Foster Care Report HSE South East (2015); and
(c) Report of Conor Dignam SC – Review of Certain Matters relating to a Disability Service in the South East (2016);
noting that the matter raises serious issues about the role of public authorities involved in the care and protection of Grace;
noting that it is the opinion of the Government that a Commission of Investigation represents the best method of addressing the concerns raised;
further noting that a draft Order which the Government proposes to make under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 (No. 23 of 2004) has been laid before Dáil Éireann on 7th March, 2017, in respect of the matters referred to, together with a statement of reasons for establishing a Commission under that Act; and
approves the draft Commission of Investigation (Certain matters relative to a disability service in the South East and related matters) Order 2017, and the statement of reasons for establishing a Commission of Investigation.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
(a) To insert after "in the care and protection of Grace" the words "and other persons who were in foster care or on private placement in the same home"; and
(b) To delete all words after "establishing a Commission under that Act;" and substitute the following:
"calls on the Government to make the following amendments to the draft Commission of Investigation (Certain matters relative to a disability service in the South East and related matters) Order 2017:
-- in section 3(a) to delete all words from and including ‘the role of public authorities’ down to and including ‘that family until 2009, and’ and substitute the following:
‘the role of public authorities in the care and protection of persons who were in foster care or private placement with a family in the South East of Ireland, including but not limited to a person known by the pseudonym Grace, who resided with that family until 2009, and'; and
-- in section 4(b), to insert after 'terms of reference,' the words 'subject to the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas,'."
- (Deputy Clare Daly)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on this important debate on the establishment of a commission of investigation into the Grace case. As the centenary of the issuing of the 1916 Proclamation is still fresh in our memories and the stated aim of the Proclamation being a new Irish republic "cherishing all the children of the nation equally", there are few more stark examples of how the reality of life in the Republic has failed to live up to the ideals of the signatories of the Proclamation than the treatment of Grace.

It is the solemn duty of the House to represent not only the concerns of citizens who are not present on the floor of the Chamber, but the concerns of those citizens who cannot for whatever reason speak for themselves.

That is why I welcome and commend this motion. I consider it to be an opportunity to finally make things right for Grace. It is a chance for this House to make an honest, collective pledge that what was done to her was wrong and that it is incumbent on us to get to the truth. Grace is entitled to that, at the very least. As a society, we owe it to Grace to be fully honest, to investigate fully and lay bare the facts of what happened, regardless of consequences. To paraphrase an ancient Latin proverb, “Let justice be done though the heavens fall”.

The Conal Devine report, published last week, examined why Grace was forgotten for a period of 20 years and was unmonitored by the health services for long periods of time. However, questions remain unanswered, the most fundamental being how the initial placement of Grace in the foster home at the centre of the abuse allegations was supposed to be a short-term arrangement, yet Grace remained there for 20 years.

This debate is not just about Grace, it is about the entitlement of every citizen in the care of the State. It is incumbent on the State to ensure the safety and protection of all vulnerable people in its care. Every person who uses disability services, every resident of a nursing home, every patient in a hospital or an approved mental health centre in this country is entitled to expect and to receive care of the highest standard and to live in dignity and safety. Every family of a service user places their trust in the State to ensure their loved one receives the best possible care with kindness and compassion.

It is only right that the immediate focus of the commission should be the treatment of Grace. However, I am pleased to note that the terms of reference provide the commission with the means to identify other issues to be investigated, including those regarding other individuals who spent time in the foster home in question.

This is a difficult topic for many of us to speak about because it is associated with one of the most painful, traumatic and heart-rending stories that we have heard in living memory. At the end of the day, all most of us can do is try to imagine and sincerely try to understand. We can never give Grace back those 20 years she lost but we can establish the truth. It is the least that she deserves. That will be Grace’s legacy. From the bottom of my heart, I wish the commission the best of success in its endeavours.

I thank the Minister of State for bringing this commission of investigation before the House. I will be supporting it, along with my colleagues. However, I do have concerns. I believe certain aspects of what has been put before us need to be looked into. I understand timelines. I understand the goals of the interim six month review. Grace needs answers. Grace's family needs answers. We as a nation need answers. We need to know it will not happen again. We need to know how we can prevent it from happening again. We need to know that balances and checks and procedures are in place to protect future Graces.

Other people who lived in that foster home should be listened to after the interim report is published. I understand that Grace is non-verbal. I expect that as many people as possible who lived in that house will be engaged with as part of the report to hear their viewpoints. Grace's voice needs to be heard. We need the people who were there with Grace to speak and advocate for her. We need her care workers to come forward for her. She is like so many others who do not have a voice. We depend on people in society to provide that voice.

I have concerns about where the five files that went to the DPP ended up. How come Grace was left in this care setting for 20 years? I have a huge concern about that. How did Grace find herself in this foster care which did not have a licence at the very beginning?

I know how case conferences operate. When a case conference is held there should be a whole team in the room, not one or two people. At this case conference should have been the social care worker, their supervisor and their manager, the Garda Síochána, the HSE, Grace and her family. Why was it not fully discussed that Grace found herself back in that foster home? I have a huge problem understanding how, when 12 or 13 people go into a room discussing one person, with all the balances and checks, that they come out and Grace goes back into that house. I need to know, as the Minister of State said, that when there is a case conference for any person in a care setting, be it a nursing home or residential care for people with disabilities, that the person's voice is heard, be they verbal or non-verbal. We need to make sure the right thing is done.

As a woman, the part I find hardest to comprehend is that in 2009, after Grace presented with bruising at a sexual assault treatment unit, she ended up back in that care setting. How did that happen? It was not just one person making a decision. How could everybody be so wrong? How could there be such negligence? Why was there no communication or protection? Where were the balances and the checks?

This commission carries such weight and responsibility for us as a nation to go forward. At the moment, we are not going forward. We have 6,344 people in foster care in this country. As spokesperson for children and youth affairs I need to know, as do all sides of the House, that our balances and checks, our policies and procedures are working, they are robust and they protect the most vulnerable in society. All of us in this House are their carers. We are their parents. We have ultimate responsibility to protect. I wish the Minister of State well with the commission of investigation. We will be supporting it, but there are certain questions that need to be answered.

Grace is a victim of a series of appalling and shameful failures. Back as far as 1992, allegations and concerns were first raised about the suitability of the placement in that particular foster home. There were allegations of physical abuse and neglect. There were further allegations concerning at least four other children in the same home. Nothing was done. Nobody was held to account. Forty-seven other children were placed in that same foster home right up until 2013. Again, nobody was held accountable.

In 1995, day care staff raised serious concerns about Grace's distressed state and found bruising across her body. There is no evidence that any investigation was ever carried out. Nobody cared enough to investigate. Again, nothing was done and nobody was held accountable.

In 1996, there was a review carried out by a three-person panel. Despite the allegations and concerns of abuse and neglect, it was decided to return Grace to that same foster home and that she should stay there. The HSE has said that this was a missed opportunity. A missed opportunity. There are absolutely no words for that statement. It is devoid of all humanity. Again, nothing was done.

In 2004 there was a failure to move Grace from the same foster home.

Not only was there a failure to remove her once again in 2004, but her name was actually removed from the waiting list of a residential care unit. Who in God's name made that decision? Who in God's name is responsible, knowing what they knew, for removing Grace's name from the waiting list of a residential care unit? Five years later, in March 2009, after hospital staff had contacted the Garda and the sexual assault treatment centre, Grace was once again returned to the same foster home. The buck has to stop somewhere. Two reports were commissioned, one in 2012 and the other in 2015. The first sat on a shelf gathering dust for years. Apparently it was three years before the report was handed over to the Garda. Who took the decision to stash the report on a shelf and not allow it into the public domain? That was a decision taken by top management. It was not a care worker who decided a commissioned report should sit on a shelf and go nowhere. What was being hidden?

The review of the two reports carried out made 40 recommendations. Does the Minister of State know how many of the recommendations have been implemented and how many have not and, if not, why not? In recent days, to add insult to injury, the HSE has stated disciplinary proceedings are to begin immediately with regard to staff implicated in care findings, but who can trust it? This is the same organisation which not only failed to act but was complicit in the neglect and abuse of Grace. It did not at any stage attempt to remove her from the foster home. Why should we believe anything it says at this stage? Does the Minister of State actually trust the same organisation which for 20 years ignored Grace's suffering? Now, after 20 years, just when the case has come to the fore and is in the public domain, the HSE states it will carry out disciplinary proceedings. Why did it not do so when Grace was suffering?

It is clear the commission of investigation must not only establish what happened, and I mean the truth of what happened, it must deliver accountability. This is the one thing that has been missing all along. It was not just a systems failure, it also involved the failure of individuals. We need to know who was responsible. We need to know who made the decisions at the top of HSE management. We need to know about the allegations of a cover-up. We need to know whether files were destroyed and, if so, who requested those files to be destroyed. The word is "accountability". We need to know why nobody was ever disciplined. Why was nobody ever sacked? There was a criminal investigation. Why was nobody ever charged?

I am not directing the comment at the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, personally, but the commission of inquiry will not be worth the paper it is written on if he does not, for the first time, go hell bent on stamping out the culture of unaccountability in the State. This is what needs to come from the commission of inquiry. Stamp out the culture of unaccountability which is rife in HSE top management. It is known the length and breadth of the State. I wish the Minister of State well but it will not be worth the paper it is written on unless this culture is stamped out and those responsible for Grace's suffering are held to account.

It is difficult to stand here on International Women's Day to speak about such a topic. I welcome the debate, if the word "welcome" is appropriate when the circumstances are so horrific. I cannot agree to the motion as tabled, although I acknowledge there is a need for an inquiry. The amendments tabled by Deputies Clare Daly and Wallace are reasonable and reflect the need for a proper investigation if we are seriously interested in learning from this scandal. However, our ability to learn to date has been very limited, and the common theme in protection is the protection of institutions at all costs. To highlight what I am saying, let me start with the 1993 Kilkenny incest report by Mrs. Justice McGuinness, who only two weeks ago spoke out again about a lack of resources. The report was presented by Deputy Brendan Howlin, who was Minister at the time. He stated everybody was horrified by the report. Everyone expressed their outrage and horror and all of the other emotions being expressed now about the Grace case and the other children who are not being covered by the inquiry. The then Minister also stated it was heartening to read the investigation team had concluded that an early diagnosis of such abuse would be much more likely. That was in 1993. Following this, in 1996, we had the report from the Kelly Fitzgerald case, which made a number of recommendations. Two years later we had the west of Ireland farmer case. A year later we had the Monageer report. In 2010 we had the Roscommon child care case. All of these reports made major recommendations. In the Roscommon case of 2010, Judge Reynolds stated the children had been utterly failed by everybody around them. Conal Devine, in 2012, and Resilience Ireland, in 2015, made approximately 50 recommendations amounting with regard to the Grace case. The Minister of State is present today but he has not told us which of these recommendations have been implemented, which I would have thought is a basic prerequisite to having trust in the system. We are looking at terms of inquiry that will exclude people and that will push the issue down the road. What we have with all of these is an utter failure to learn and I have a sense of wash, rinse and repeat.

It might be difficult to listen to this but these are major reports from which successive Governments have utterly refused to learn. There would be no need for inquiries if we acted on the recommendations of report after report. The most basic requisite for the Minister of State today is to tell us what recommendations have been implemented and which ones have not been implemented. The research on the Department's website, which examines all of the reports I have mentioned, states some of the recommendations have been implemented and some have not. Very often, the way recommendations are written in reports is not conducive to clarity and carrying them out. We are back here today looking at a situation where, simply, mistruths have been repeatedly told and the institution has protected itself at all costs, in this situation at the cost of Grace and other children.

Sometimes in the Dáil it is difficult to keep going, given the political games being played. Today is International Women's Day and I am standing here speaking about a young woman called Grace who has been utterly neglected. Moreover, so have other children and there is no report before Members to tell them whether the recommendations of the two previous reports prior to the one commissioned in November have been implemented. By my reckoning, more than €500,000 has been paid to private consultants to examine our ill system and an institution which cannot provide the service it is statutorily obliged to provide. Will the Minister of State examine the amendments tabled if he is seriously interested in learning from this and from the other reports? What review of foster care in each county throughout the country has been carried out? In a previous life I was fully aware of difficulties in various foster homes, including a lack of monitoring and a lack of inspection. Will the Minister of State confirm to me the status of the review of all foster homes?

This is a difficult issue to speak about. This week has been a very difficult time. The mirror is showing us how we did not care for children, did not want certain children and let them die and that we did not provide due care for this child, this young adult, this person, Grace. It reflects badly on all of us and our society. We have an obligation to try to do our best to make sure the level of abuse that has been exposed does not happen again. I was listening to an earlier contribution about conference calls. I have personal experience as a parent of a child with a disability. The Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, will know that experience as well. I was thinking of and reflecting on our own experience when readying myself to speak on this case and it was not a positive one where State psychological services were concerned. While I stand up for and celebrate our State in many ways, our own family experience regarding the provision of psychological services in assessing our son and in looking for placement, services and so on would not give great confidence. One of the biggest concerns from our experience is something similar to what we are seeing here. It is a sense that the system itself was going to cover the system. We were in conference calls. They were an incredible waste of time. Some 12 people were paid significantly and because, in our experience, they were not really addressing the issues that we were facing, we felt that it was a waste. There was also an acute sensation in the waiting room where other families were facing similar circumstances. There was a sense that the family was not quite trusted, quite right or up to speed with the approach taken by the psychological and social services. In our own family, we were strong enough to stand up for our rights and our son. We thought in our heart and asked many times what happens if one is not so sure or confident. Some might call this arrogant. If one was not quite of that same strength, one might be treated in the way that we have seen Grace's mother being treated over all these years. This is not an isolated incidence. There is a culture within the State psychological and social care services that needs to change. While I welcome a wider commission and investigation into the specifics of this case, it raises questions about the overall quality and culture within the care services for people with disability. There are many good things. It is not all bad. We have subsequently found significant services for our son and brilliant people within the system.

We need to create a system that really cares and is not a box-ticking exercise of protecting against legal or other regulatory rules and having everything be done by the book. We need a system that is creative and caring to each individual in an innovative way. We need a system where the abuses, as occurred in this case, are not covered up. That is the real story. One of the shocking things in Grace's case is the number of times it was drawn to the attention of the system but the system sought to protect itself and ignored the cries of, and in this case the bruises on, the individual. The international reports and Garda reports were all ignored. The first thing we need to change in our system is to stop it from trying to protect itself where it is not delivering to the high standards we would expect of it. As a parent, and the Minister of State would know this experience personally, the real fear is about what happens after the child turns 18. It seems to us, as parents of children who are approaching 18, that there is a cliff where one fears that many of the services, many of which are very good, will not be there as that child enters adulthood. That is why Grace resonates with many people. It is the sense of believing that the child, the young person, the adult was in safe care, when the opposite was the case. It is that fear that every parent, everyone related and everyone with an interest in disability has and which chills them to the bone. The care we hope will be there in community, foster care or other systems must be something in which we have 100% faith. That faith has been lost in this case. We need to restore it in everything we do.

We are back on this particular subject again, sadly. It serves us all to ponder how we got here and how we have got here on so many occasions in the past. The question arises as to whether we can be absolutely certain that we will not have to visit a similar situation to this in the future. There are lessons to be learned, which include the need for careful checking. The protection system must move into place not to protect the system but to protect the vulnerable in the event of a report, from whatever source, to the effect that doubt is cast over an institution, whether it be a State institution, foster home or whatever the case may be. We have lost our way somewhere along the line, in the sense that protecting the system has become more important than protecting the individual. It is appalling that a vulnerable person could be subject from childhood to adulthood to the kind of abuse we have heard about in this particular case. There was not an immediate response from the system to ensure that this did not happen, that it ceased and that appropriate action was taken to ensure that those involved were dealt with in a meaningful way. We seem to have a reluctance as a society about this and there is a sense that in the event of there being a question raised, we should perhaps not pursue it at all and perhaps should allow it to go away of its own accord. Things do not happen that way.

Reference has been made and people in the House have spoken about first-hand experience with their own children. Those people are in an enlightened position. They know what it is like to be dependent on the system or on somebody else to ensure that their child or young adult gets fair play. We are in dangerous territory once we start to forget about the vulnerable and move into the area of ensuring that nothing disturbs the peace and calm of the system. I have to say, and go back to what other people have said, that any answer to a parliamentary question should extract the maximum amount of factual information every time. There has been a tendency in recent years to dismiss the value of parliamentary questions and replace them with freedom of information. Freedom of information is fine, but the parliamentary question is the ultimate avenue and key for any parliamentarian to extract information of a sensitive or valuable nature. It can be done without the use of names or anything like that. It can be totally anonymous and the effect can be dramatic. I would like to see that in the future. Every parliamentary question should be required to be factual, no matter where and when it is placed or for whom or whatever it is about. It should be factually examined and all of the people who tick the box, from the person who drafts the reply right up to the top, need to recognise the importance of the job that they are doing and the necessity to ensure that we have factual information.

Why do we have repeats and so much recidivism? Why do we come back to the same place again and again? Obviously because nothing happens after the flag has been raised and everybody has protested. It then goes away and everything becomes quiet and calm again and it is all over. That should not be the case. We should learn a lesson from every single instance. We should learn the harsh lesson that once the issue has arisen once, it can arise again. Where was vetting and why did appropriate Garda vetting not take place in these situations? As a result of such vetting, why was it not ensured that vulnerable people were not under the control of people who, for want of a better description, were predators? Why should it be that in the most sensitive of services, it was possible for abusers to abuse children and adults? I cannot understand how that could happen. How did those immediately involved make it possible? These things do not happen without somebody knowing it immediately in the next bay or next window, as it were. I know that whistleblowers operated in this case but not as effectively as we would like, because there was reluctance and reticence from those in control.

In this particular case, we know that the whistleblower did not operate as effectively as we would have liked because there was a reluctance and a reticence all of the time in so far as those in control were concerned.

I hope we will learn lessons from this case and that it will be the last time we will have this kind of debate as a result of tragic circumstances involving any individual, child or adult, being abused in the way this has happened.

Today is International Women's Day and it is ironic that we are discussing how the State failed another woman, called Grace. There is no doubt about it that she was failed. However, I want to thank the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, for stepping up to address this matter because it has taken too long. He is probably about eight months in his brief, but I appreciate the fact he has taken it on. It is important to acknowledge that. It has dragged on for long enough and reports have gathered dust following one excuse after another.

I also compliment Deputy John McGuinness and Deputy John Deasy for all the work they have done to bring this case to the fore. I am a new Deputy but I know the work that was done over the past five years and it is important to acknowledge it.

The facts surrounding this case are harrowing. Given the deep and dark history of child sex abuse in Ireland, people are shocked to hear that a child who was in State care was again left abandoned and abused while in foster care, particularly when other children were removed from the home due to concerns.

Serious allegations have been made by a whistleblower that people in a position of responsibility with a duty of care failed to safeguard the security of vulnerable defenceless children and adults, a number of them with intellectual disabilities. The whistleblower is to be commended on her bravery and there is an onus on us all as legislators to learn from this case in order that we can prevent it from ever happening again. I sincerely thank her for bringing this case to light. It cannot have been easy for a new social worker in a new job encountering such horrors. This person had the guts, strength and common sense to report the matter to her employers. Luckily, the employers supported and encouraged her. Only for that social worker, Grace might still be in the foster home and we would not be discussing the case here today.

Grace was 11 years old when she went to live with a foster family in the south east. Her mother assumed she was safe. There were meant to be six-month reviews, but this did not happen. Why? This is one of the questions I hope will be answered. Why was a child with special needs put in a foster home and not checked up on? She was left there to languish and be abused.

According to the recently published Devine and Resilience reports, this is when the litany of abuse started. The foster child, who cannot speak, was in that home for 20 years. Apparently she was subjected to physical, mental, sexual and financial abuse. What we need to remember here is that this was not an isolated situation. It took place in a supposedly State-supervised setting.

While the reports shed some light on the abuse itself, no one has taken responsibility for the unforgivable failings in the provision of State care to vulnerable children. The hardest part for me to read was the fact that Grace was found with bruises by her carers and was taken to the sexual assault treatment unit in Waterford Regional Hospital, as it was then known. Staff failed to find a safe place for Grace to stay, after being in the sexual assault unit for the entire day. What did they do? They sent her back to the house of horrors, which was classed as the least bad option. How can so little be thought of a human being? How could she have been so wronged in her life? It is clear that the manner in which vulnerable children are cared for by the State needs to be reviewed.

I compliment foster parents in Ireland who, in the main, do a fantastic job, opening their homes and their hearts to vulnerable children. This cannot be forgotten. However, we must be 100% confident that any child being cared for by the State, or agencies acting on behalf of the State, are safe and not at risk.

While the commission is undertaking this investigation, why not include all who lived in this home? Obviously other residents will have to be questioned about Grace and the abuses she suffered. These other residents will be essential to come to a conclusion. Does it not make sense to deal with all the residents together, because they will have to give their side of what happened? Since Grace is non-verbal, they will certainly have a large role to play.

The national safeguarding policy for vulnerable adults should be placed on a statutory basis. All Members of the Thirty-second Dáil have a duty to ensure the safeguards are put in place in order that nothing like this can ever happen again to any child or young adult like Grace, and all the other Graces that have been let down by our country.

This is not about finger-pointing, it is about trying to get all the answers. I commend the Minister of State on stepping up to ensure this investigation commenced, because it needed to happen. This and other revelations in the mother and baby homes have shaken us all to the core. Our past can no longer be swept under the carpet.

I was struck by a comment from the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts this week. Responding to a statement from a senior HSE official in the area of disability, Deputy Fleming said he accepted that there was no conspiracy within the HSE when it came to the issues surrounding Grace's foster home. I am not sure how he came to make that sweeping judgment because I am not so sure that people understand what actually happened. Members of the Dáil should perhaps hold off from accepting anything said by the HSE on this matter. Deputy McGuinness and I discovered that, in dealing with the HSE on this issue, the first casualty was always the truth.

I would like to give some examples of what is, and was, a cover-up. The legal advice to the HSE from day one was to make Grace a ward of court to protect her, but the HSE refused to do so. That was because they had concerns about a judge asking awkward questions on the HSE's failings in this regard.

In June 2008, at a HSE committee on vulnerable adults, three options were discussed: do nothing, make her a ward of court, or give the birth mother information under a freedom of information, FOI, request and risk her being made a ward of court as a result. It was noted at the meeting that "this would lead to a disastrous day in court, as it would appear the HSE had done nothing".

The HSE took the first option, did nothing and denied information to which the birth mother was entitled under FOI. The agency caring for Grace was then refused any information, medical or otherwise, because the HSE did not want the agency to discover its failings.

Mr. Conor Dignam SC found that to be a breach in the duty of care to Grace because she suffered trauma needlessly and started to self-harm as a result. The agency then went about making her a ward of court itself, which would legally mandate information to be imparted and would allow a solicitor to instruct for Grace.

The HSE then told the agency not to do it, and said the agency could not take actions unapproved by the HSE. It reminded the agency that the HSE was its sole funder. When the whistleblower told the HSE that they were going ahead with wardship, the HSE contacted her manager and board of directors, and pressurised them not to proceed. The HSE wrote to her line manager with fabricated information alleging poor professional conduct.

The High Court then chose the whistleblower as the legal committee for Grace. When she again asked for information regarding medical and psychological care, the HSE again refused. The HSE then wrote to the High Court - this is my favourite part - saying the whistleblower was not fulfilling her duties because she did not have the proper assessments and information, even though they were the ones withholding the information. It is pretty twisted stuff. It is almost Kafkaesque.

One HSE official then innocently gave the whistleblower a psychological report on Grace. When her HSE bosses found out they accused the whistleblower, through a solicitor, of being aggressive and abusive, and not a fit person to represent Grace.

When the HSE official who had innocently provided the psychological report on Grace found out about this, she signed a statement setting out that it was a complete fabrication by the HSE.

For five years, the Conal Devine report sat on a shelf and the HSE refused to give it to anyone. On 5 March 2015, the Committee of Public Accounts announced it had received a disclosure about non-publication of the report. The following day, the HSE wrote to the Garda for the first time seeking the go-ahead to publish the report. That is a serious coincidence. When HSE officials appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts they told members the protected disclosures had been fully investigated when they had not been fully investigated. They told us there were no procurement issues when Dignam found there had been procurement issues. They told us the people who decided to keep Grace in placement in 1996 had all retired when they had not all retired. They told us the Garda had stopped them from publishing the report when it had not done so. They also told us they had apologised to Grace and her mother when they had not done so.

Was this a conspiracy and cover-up? Yes, it was. As I have stated previously, it was a concerted and organised attempt to hide information and conceal the truth by a clique of HSE managers. It was an orchestrated attempt to protect officials who and an organisation which failed people in State care in a catastrophic manner on a number of levels.

I understand the motion before us on the terms of reference of a commission of investigation cannot be amended. It needs to be amended and, following our discussion last night with the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, and the whistleblowers, it should be amended. It will not be acceptable if the House passes the motion when we know so much about this issue that is wrong. If we accept the terms of reference, we will heap further abuse on the families in question. We will become the abusers in this case. That is what will happen here and I will explain the reasons for that statement.

As the Minister of State is aware, the whistleblowers first exhausted every avenue available to them in the Health Service Executive. They tried everything to highlight this case but they were not listened to. They were forced to contact the Committee of Public Accounts to deal with a procurement issue relating to reports that cost the State almost €400,000. It was from this examination that the story emerged, not only of Grace - that is a neat way of packaging it - but of 46 others whose cases we also need to examine. We need to find out what happened in the HSE that led to this scandal being covered up since 1982.

We need to go back to the time before Grace and humanise this story. What about the 12 year old girl who was taken out of the foster home in question before Grace because her mother was told that she was attending school bruised, beaten and neglected? When she made complaints to the South Eastern Health Board in 1992, she was told to shut up and not to repeat the stories and she was threatened legally. When she removed her child from care, she had to seek care for her in Northern Ireland because the health board would not support her. How disgusting is that? This girl's case will not be included in the commission of inquiry's remit. Let us put real words on this case. The child was battered, bruised, financially abused and sexually abused anally so that today, as an adult, she leads a life of pain and suffering. Despite this, the Minister of State does not propose to have her case investigated. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

What about the young boy who was placed in the foster home in question and who stated, when he learned about Grace, that if only he had spoken up about what happened to him, the case of Grace may not have happened? He carries that burden with him.

Then we have the case of Grace. When she turned up at a day care centre measuring 5 ft and severely underweight, she was described in a doctor's report as slim and well. If that is not an attempt to cover up what was happening in the foster home, I do not know what is. She was battered, bruised, sexually abused anally, deprived of her money and neglected. Is neglect not abuse in itself?

The Minister of State has listened to some of the parents concerned. I listened to one of them this morning for one hour as she cried about the abuse her daughter suffered and the quality of life she now has. I spoke to the carer this morning who cried bitter tears again because she was not being listened to. This was a major cover-up by the HSE, an astonishing set of events that resulted in lives being destroyed. The House is now discussing terms of reference that are inadequate and that were not recommended by Conor Dignam, who said we should stop covering up. The Minister of State knows that.

That is rubbish.

Mr. Dignam's terms of reference are far more robust than those the Minister of State has presented. His report refers to the need to investigate the other cases.

While I fully support the investigation into the case of Grace-----

-----the other cases-----

They will be dealt with.

The Minister of State knows they will not be dealt with. He heard the public commentary last night when he was told that we were further abusing these families and individuals by neglecting to take on board what the whistleblowers and the Dignam report said. If we pass this motion, we should be ashamed ourselves. I certainly will not support it.

I hope that after many long years of abandonment by the State, the Health Service Executive and Tusla, Grace will receive the truth and justice she deserves. As previous speakers pointed out, however, the commission of investigation must not be hypocritical by failing to address the cases of other children who were failed and who suffered abuse. It must bring fair retribution for Grace and all other children affected by the horrific treatment they received in the foster home in question. Those responsible for the years of negligence and lack of oversight, protection, advocacy and care should be investigated and charged accordingly.

The most upsetting thing for people hearing about Grace is the repeated failures she faced in being rescued. This is indicative of how the voiceless and vulnerable in society are treated. It is disgusting to realise that we have a care system that not only allows for this, but systematically attempts to cover up its failures. A commitment must be given to all the other families concerned that they will receive an investigation, rather than waiting for 12 months simply to learn if they will receive one.

The terms of reference do not go far enough. The proposal to deal with the matter in modules means that many families who have been waiting for answers are expected to wait potentially for years. That is not right. Are the reputations of the HSE and the commission now deemed more important than the safety of children? If that is the case, I worry that we have not learned anything.

I am also particularly concerned about my constituency of Kilkenny regarding revelations last week that St. Patrick's centre sent children on respite trips to the foster home in question. The centre and any other homes that may have arranged similar visits should be included in the overall investigation.

A lesson must be learned from this case, which cannot all be in vain. The HSE and Tusla must make sufficient provision for all children in need of a qualified social worker, not only for a basic minimum period. There must be continuity and consistency in the treatment of vulnerable children and people with special needs. The ad hoc system of plastering over issues with minimal resources must end. Otherwise, as we have tragically witnessed time and again, the risk is too high.

While this commission of investigation is crucial, we cannot wait for its findings before rectifying other cases currently in the system. If anything, there should be an immediate examination of all high-risk cases as a matter of urgency to ensure other "Graces" are not suffering in a similar way as we speak. I have no doubt there are other vulnerable and voiceless children in the care system who are not being vouched for or receiving the care they need.

We know this in report after report from the HSE. In light of all that has been revealed in past weeks, the HSE and Tusla must make those children who are at risk in the system a priority today. More social workers must be employed immediately to seek out those on the waiting lists who could potentially be in precarious situations. As is often quoted, the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.

The events of the past few weeks concerning Grace, the other 46 children sent to this home and the 796 children's bodies revealed at Tuam have us all feeling unimaginably disgusted. In this context, let us not forget that there are modern-day issues such as child homelessness, child poverty, children currently in care with substandard help and children in direct provision, who could all equally be as vulnerable today as those in the past. The direct provision issue is one we must consider very soon because in a number of years we will all hang our heads in shame over how the children in direct provision were treated. Collectively as a society and as elected representatives we have a responsibility to hold those in positions of responsibility to account and to vouch for our citizens and children today who are voiceless. That is our duty and is what we should be here for. The commission of investigation needs to be broadened. It must address all those who suffered and hold those responsible to account.

Go raibh maith agat a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Failtím deis labhairt ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo sa Teach. I begin by saying what a difficulty it is for all of us as public representatives in this House as we struggle to connect and to portray collectively the outrage of the people we represent at home. It is at times like this that all of us struggle, first and foremost with language and with putting words on how we feel, in trying to put words onto the moods of the people who are reading these stories and the heartbreak that is felt by all of us. We must get the balance right when we come to talk about a subject like this. We must put our emotions and difficulties into facing what happened. A child who was intellectually challenged and who could not speak was raped. In trying to deal with that emotion, anger, hurt and shame and in trying to put together highly academic terms of reference to govern an inquiry to look into what happened, we must try to do some justice and make some sense of what has happened. It is an extraordinarily difficult task for us to do.

We can be political about it but there is no point in doing that as this is way beyond politics. It is too far gone down that road. The people out there are not interested in whether it is Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil or Sinn Féin that are behind it. They just want answers and they want them fast. People want answers to the questions that are floating around. I must declare an interest as a foster carer myself. I mind children like Grace and others. What do we owe them? As a society and as legislators we must make sure there is not another Grace out there. How do we do that? We need to get to the answers as quickly as possible. I have no beef to hold here in defending the Government line. I have not been asked to come out here to defend the current terms of reference but I make the point on my own behalf that if we include another 46 children, along with Grace, and set up the commission to look for answers to 47 cases, then it will double, treble or quadruple the time it will take to get to the answers and the answers will all be the same. The answers are the failings, corruption and rottenness at the core of the people who had responsibility for these children. I am talking about the HSE at the time. If we go through each one of the 47 cases they will all point back to the same failings, to the same State body and the same State organisation. I believe that a first module needs to be concluded as quickly as possible because there can be other cases such as Grace's this very day. We can all express our moral outrage, shame and indignation around what has happened in the past, but what about the 6,344 children who are in the care of the State today? We owe it to them to get to the bottom of the system's failings. Of course we all want to see justice for Grace and the others but I perceive the most pressing and urgent priority to be to get to the heart of what went wrong within the HSE. There was a social worker who was in charge of this family - called the link worker - and who takes responsibility for the family providing the care. I have one myself, that is, the person who is responsible for my actions and to see how I behave when I am caring for children who belong to very vulnerable families who cannot care for the children themselves and when that great honour is left with me, my wife and my children. Why did the link worker involved in Grace's case not do his or her job? We need to know whether this still potentially is happening today or whether we have enough robust systems, checks and balances in place to protect it. I accept 100% the Minister of State's bona fides on this matter. I urge him to get on with establishing the commission and to get it as narrowly defined as possible to get real answers about what happened within the system. He should include in the same terms of reference a commitment to have a second module to look at the other 46 cases. When we look at the first case, I believe we will learn an awful lot, which will guide us when looking at the next 46 cases. We did the same with the McCabe commission and the other whistleblowers. There are many people out there looking for justice but we also have a responsibility to the here and now, to what we can control, to what we can protect and to what we can check to ensure the most vulnerable children in the State are being cared for to the best of our ability. We owe it to them and we owe it to them now. I plead with and urge all Deputies to work collaboratively and collectively and to put aside their differences by getting behind one commission of investigation that will get to the rotten truth of why the system let us down so badly in the case of Grace, with a commitment contained therein to look at the other cases. These investigations will not get justice for these people; there is a separate parallel process to get justice for these victims. As a State, we need to answer the questions.

Go raibh maith agat a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Mar a dúirt an Teachta Jim Daly, tá sé deacair dúinn go léir a thuiscint cad a tharla do Grace agus do na páistí eile a bhí sa teach léi. I believe that we are all struggling to find the language but first we must ensure that the commission gets up and running and that its terms of reference are as they should be. As my party leader stated last night, the terms simply must be wider than Grace alone. There were 47 other children in that house.

Under the heading "Care and Decision Making in respect of Others", Mr. Conor Dignam, SC has recommended that the commission should investigate a range of matters broader than the Grace case, including all claims made in the protected disclosures that gave rise to the inquiry, the care received by all persons placed in the foster home, including whether they suffered abuse and whether the HSE knew, as well as the use of this placement by another unnamed person. Conor Dignam was initially given the job to make recommendations and these were his recommendations. I believe we need to see the terms widened.

I would like to pay tribute in the Chamber to Deputies John Deasy and John McGuinness, to the journalists and the whistleblowers and to those people who had the courage and tenacity to keep pressing on this issue until we got to the point where the Minister announced that he would be setting up this investigation. We need to get it right. I was in the Chamber last night when it was suggested and the message given out that it was not going to be possible to amend the terms of reference. Some Deputies realised they could and they put in amendments. Other Deputies did not table amendments because they believed they did not have the opportunity to do so. A mechanism needs to be found to ensure the terms of reference for the commission are as comprehensive as they need to be.

We are talking about something awful and how that girl and others were left in that situation without any intervention, despite all the signs and evidence that were there and despite the fact that she went to hospital with bruises. There was no intervention for that vulnerable child, who was all the more vulnerable because she could not express what was happening to her. There were other children in that house who could do so. That is all the more reason why we need to hear from other children who were in that house. We need to get to the truth of the matter for the sake of the children and everyone who is connected to those children, their families and anyone else that knows them and cares about their welfare. We also need to do it for all the other children who are in care, foster care or otherwise, for all the parents who have placed their children in care in good faith believing they would be looked after properly and for all the foster parents who are looking after children and who in the vast majority of cases are doing a really positive and good job.

If we do not get to the truth of what happened in the home where Grace was, then there will always be doubts, a lack of confidence and questions. We have to get to the truth of what happened and exactly why it happened. We have to hold people responsible because there were people who made decisions that allowed Grace and many other children to stay in that situation. If we do not get those answers, then we are not doing justice to all of those children and the people around them, as well as to others who are in situations of care. We have to get back a confidence that the system works well and is properly organised and that when somebody does something wrong or makes a mistake, it is immediately brought to light and righted and things do not get pushed further underneath a carpet because people are afraid of what is going to happen if it all comes out.

It is good that it is all coming out now. It is good that the awful other case we have been talking about this week is coming out, namely, the case of the babies buried in Tuam and other places, which has hugely traumatised many people. If we do not get to the bottom of all of these cases, we cannot build a new system that will work for all children. The Acting Chairman and I have just come from the Committee on Children and Youth Affairs, which was discussing the guardian ad litem legislation, the importance of justice for children in the courts system and the rights of children in UN declarations, in EU law, in Irish law and in the Constitution. Yet, these are children who are the most voiceless and the most helpless and whose rights in these cases were entirely unvindicated. We to have to ensure we get things right and we will only do that if we get the foundations right. The foundations will not be right if we do not open up what has happened in the past and build a system in which people can have confidence.

I wish to make a point about the current situation. We are aware there are thousands of children in care at present who do not have an allocated social worker. In answers I received to a recent question, it was stated the goal was to reduce that number by 60% by the end of 2016 but it was actually only reduced by 19%. Again, I am not casting blame on anyone. What I am saying is we need to ensure that every child who is in care has a social worker and, therefore, we need to back that with funding. There is an issue around recruitment but we also need to ensure enough funding is allocated to ensure every child in care has a social worker.

In this country we do sorrow, shame and indignation very well. I just wish that we did truth and justice every bit as well. It is ironic that today is International Women's Day, where we celebrate the positive developments for women that have been made over the last 109 years. Yet, this week we are debating both the Tuam situation and the issue of how Grace and other girls and mothers have been treated.

I always thought the name Grace meant blessed in some way. It is name one feels means a child is full of grace and will have a lot of positivity and blessing in her life, although certainly not in the case of this Grace. It is incredible to believe that a young woman such as Grace could have remained with a family for more than 20 years despite repeated allegations and evidence of physical and sexual abuse, including black eyes, bruising and carpet burns, as well as the alleged defrauding of money. Grace went for years without any medical attention. Her general appearance was described, and people took the time to describe it, as poor and chaotic.

I believe the terms of reference of this inquiry should be expanded to include the cases of the 46 other children who were placed with this foster family. We know that at least four of them have alleged they were abused while staying with the foster family. The Devine report has related very specifically to that. Grace's mother herself sought files from the HSE under the Freedom of Information Act but was denied them for two years. She deserves answers, as we all do, as to when, how and how often the home was monitored. Did the HSE suppress or hide information about the facts of the case? Why was the 1996 decision to move Grace overturned? Why did it take another 13 years for her to be moved to a residential placement?

State agencies failed in their job to keep vulnerable people safe and whistleblowers were ignored. The people charged with protecting Grace failed to discharge their duty of care to her and, at this point in time, apologies are not enough for Grace, her mother and her family or for all the other children and all the other Graces. We need to get the commission up and running straight away and we absolutely must ensure there is never another Grace.

When I was elected to the House more than a year ago, I promised my constituents in Kildare South that I would be a voice for the vulnerable, those who did not have a voice and those who could not make their voice loud enough. I cannot think of any other situation where I would want to say something only for Grace. I am at present involved with the Care Leavers Network. Shane Griffin, a young man from Kildare who went through 19 care homes, and Wayne Dignam are doing incredible work in terms of identifying the gaps and challenges for those 6,644 children who at present are in care in Ireland. They are also working with Empowering People in Care, EPIC, to make sure we try to address this and put more supports in place for those in care. Once they pass the age of 18, all of a sudden they are cast out into the big bad world without any level of support.

It is important to acknowledge all of the very good foster parents who provide wonderful homes to many of those 6,644 children. We need to have the very best foster parents to be able to cater for children in very challenging situations and to be able to afford them the emotional, financial and supportive environment they need, given many have had a lot of trauma at a very early age.

The work the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, is doing is very welcome and I know he is extremely well intentioned in this regard. As I have said, I believe we need to expand the inquiry to include the other cases. If the situation arises that this does not happen, I believe we need to have an ironclad agreement and commitment from the Minister of State and the Government that, as soon as the case of Grace is openly and transparently dealt with and recommendations are made, this will carry on for all of the other Graces we have.

There is no doubt the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, is a thoroughly decent person and in my book, he has always strived to do the right thing. It is incumbent on him, the Government and all Ministers to make sure we get this right.

We heard this morning from two former members of the Committee of Public Accounts who have examined many of these issues in great detail, namely, Deputies McGuinness and Deasy. Both stated that what is at play here is a massive cover-up by the HSE. It appears that is the case but obviously we need to establish the truth. To enable us to establish the truth, however, we need to hear from all of the victims and their families and we need to make sure that all allegations that are being made are covered. That is an absolute necessity. I would like to hear the Minister of State's response to many of the issues which have been raised.

Grace, as we know, was a victim of multiple failures across many different State and semi-State bodies and she is not the only one. Unfortunately, as the Minister of State knows, it is not the first time we are here discussing people who were in the care of the State and who were victims of abuse.

In this case, there have been horrific levels of abuse against Grace and many others as well.

When the social workers identified as Ms D and Ms E first raised the allegations of a cover-up to the effect that there was a danger of the deliberate destruction of files and threats to their agencies' funding from the HSE, what was the response of the authorities? They passed on the allegations to the very section against which they had been made. That is quite incredible. It was an incredible systems failure if that is what happened. When the Dignam report was first published, the HSE said that the report did not find any instances of wrongdoing or fault. Ever since, it has had to backtrack almost with every passing day.

As we know, the report did find instances of wrongdoing or fault. Legally, it was not possible for negative findings to be made. The Dignam report identified several failures in the previous reports, including inadequate terms of reference, meaning that the reviews in question were hampered in terms of scope. It also notes that these reviews did not contain the protected disclosures made by Ms D and Ms A. The Dignam report states that allegations were made by Ms D, a social worker, regarding a cover-up, the danger of a deliberate destruction of files and threats to the funding of the organisation she worked for by the HSE. These are extraordinary allegations.

The allegation of a cover-up is extremely serious, given the level, duration and scale of failings by the organisation, as well as the scale of the abuse of which we have been made aware. The possibility that the evidence was destroyed is also deeply disturbing. I quote the Dignam report:

1.5: Substantive matters underlying those two previous Inquiries and matters related to those substantive matters are matters which have obviously been the subject of extensive public discourse and coverage in the media. This Review came about because of specific process-type issues that were raised before the Public Accounts Committee. The Review was clearly not established to investigate those underlying substantive matters and it would therefore have been wrong and inappropriate for me to have done so. I have not done so.

1.6: Whether some of the concerns expressed in that public discourse prove to be correct and well-founded or not, it is indisputable that they have raised very significant public unease and questions of public interest.

Of course, Mr. Dignam did not have powers of compellability. He was entirely reliant on the HSE and any other party he sought or requested documentation from to provide him with all of the relevant or required documents and to ensure that the copies were complete. In other words, Mr. Dignam was reliant on others to implicate themselves in wrongdoing. The Minister of State knows that this was the case. He knows that is unacceptable. He knows that is not the way to establish the truth and, in my view, he knows now what needs to be done. We need to have all of the matters contained in complaints by two of the protected disclosures to the Department of Health in 2014 fully investigated. As the Dignam report recommended, we need to know the facts relating to any difficulties in the functioning of the relevant social work department, including any reasons underlying such difficulties, the facts relating to any steps that were taken to address these difficulties, the question of whether any such difficulties had any impact on the care and welfare of service users and, if they had such impact, how the situation was permitted to arise. We also need to know the facts relating to the care received by all of those placed in foster placement.

I will finish with one very quick point. I ask the Minister of State to assure the Dáil that if we are to have a commission of investigation into the Grace case, any evidence of a criminal nature will not be exempt from any future court cases.

As there are no other Members offering, I call on the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, to conclude the debate. He has five minutes or so.

I would appreciate a bit of injury time. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank all Deputies for their contributions to the debate on this motion. I acknowledge their constructive input into assisting the Government's consideration of these highly sensitive issues. I commend Deputies Murphy O'Mahony and Cullinane and the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, who are here at the moment, on their constructive and supportive ideas on how we should all deal with the Grace case. This debate has demonstrated the complexity of the issues, which I am sure the commission of investigation will be eager to look in to. We all have one thing in common: the protection of Grace and the other people as citizens of this State.

The motion before the House deals with the arrangements agreed by the Government on 7 March in respect of the establishment of a commission of investigation into certain matters relative to a disability service in the south east and related matters. It has become more commonly known as the Grace case. In this House last year, the Taoiseach said that he felt revulsion at what had been done to Grace. I am certain that no one in this House, or indeed in this country, would not concur with those sentiments. I want to get to the truth of this matter. I am supporting Grace and the other families as well. I have been an advocate for people with disabilities for over 25 years and I will continue to fight for truth, justice, quality services and accountability. I will include everybody and let their voices be heard. I do not do exclusion. Anybody that knows me knows that I do not do exclusion. I will listen to all voices and everybody will be listened to. That is how we will get to the truth and justice for Grace and others. I also believe that we need decisive action and accountability. I ask the House today to trust me on this case and to trust me on these core issues. Nobody will be left out.

I also ask the House to trust the independent view of the commission. I have confidence in our new chairperson of the commission, Ms Marjorie Farrelly, SC. I have great confidence in her experience and her prosecution background. With regard to some of the comments made about Mr. Conor Dignam, SC, and Ms Marjorie Farrelly, SC, they were consulted as part of the preparation for the terms of reference. Ms Farrelly is fully satisfied with the terms of reference. We need to get out there. As I said before, I want to ensure that every single person in this debate is included. I believe that is important.

I appreciate the passion and feeling about Grace and others who have suffered so much in the care of the State when they most needed protection. I share it. We are all on the same side and share the same objective. I say that particularly to Deputy McGuinness, who I met last night with the two whistleblowers. I respect his commitment in respect of this issue and I do listen to his ideas. It was always my intention that there would be a second phase to this commission to investigate the care and decision-making in respect of others as well as Grace. Nobody will be excluded. I will repeat that: nobody will be excluded. However, I have listened to the concerns of Deputies Howlin, Cullinane, McGuinness, Murphy O'Mahony and others expressed. For the avoidance of any doubt, I have decided to recommend to Government that we make this completely explicit in the terms of reference. My objective was to have a clear focus on the care of Grace as the first phase of this work. I stand by that. There have already been a series of reports into the care of Grace but the facts of what happened and the reasons for certain key decisions are still not clear. I accept the Deputies' arguments on that. The commission provides the means to call witnesses and hear the evidence in order that we can finally learn the truth.

I am a very practical person. I listen to constructive and sensible ideas from people. I did not want this commission to continue its deliberations for years.

I want to have answers as quickly as possible to the case of Grace, who was resident with this foster family for so many years. That has always been my position. However, I have always been a listener when people have come into the Chamber to point out things having listened to others. I have tremendous time, as Deputy McGuinness and Deputy Howlin know, for the two whistleblowers. I have met them before and I met them again last night.

I am supporting Grace 100%. I want to get this moving. However, I also wish to ensure and put down a marker in order that the other people will not be excluded. However, as I have already said, I intend to circulate revised terms of reference to put at ease the minds of those concerned in respect of the imperative for the cases of others to be investigated in a second phase. It is important that we say this in respect of the broader debate. That is my clear position.

Several Deputies raised a number of issues. Considerable work has been done in respect of protecting vulnerable people in our society. Since I took over as Minister of State, I have been in contact with over 5,000 people who are working in the disability services. These include service providers, parents or people with disabilities themselves. Every time I meet these people, I ask about safety and protection on the campus or in the residential centre in question. My experience in the past seven or eight months suggests to me that things have improved. However, that does not mean we should not be vigilant.

I thank my colleagues for their views on this important debate. We need to focus on Grace and vulnerable adults with disabilities. They all deserve the truth and justice. We also deserve accountability. That is the message I want to send out to broader society. We care about vulnerable people in our society. We care passionately about people with disabilities. That is where we are and that is my position.

Can I raise a point of order-----

I am not too sure. We will have to listen to it.

The Minister of State has introduced some new information relating to what he intends to do in respect of the amendment to the terms of reference. I am unsure whether that is what he said. Can we find out what that means?

We will ask the Minister of State.

This is partly for you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, because we have a resolution and draft terms of reference before us. That is what we have been debating. I warmly welcome the contribution of the Minister of State, who was listening to what was said last night and this morning. I understand he is going to amend the terms of reference. However, we need to see them. Procedurally, are you going to put a vote now?

That is the intention. There is one amendment.

How can we vote on a motion that is about to be amended when we have not seen the amendment?

The Minister of State will have to indicate what he intends to do about that, if it is to come back to the House again.

I agree with those points. We already have an amendment to the Government amendment. The sitting needs to be suspended. First, the Government will have to circulate the amended wording. Before we can take a decision on what to do we need to consider the amendments already tabled. There is confusion now.

By the way, I welcome the additionality and clarification that the Minister of State has proposed. However, before we take a vote, there needs to be a suspension. If the Government is agreeable, perhaps it can come back once we have had time to digest and examine the wording. I think that is reasonable.

Does the Minister or Minister of State wish to respond?

As I said earlier, I have listened to the concerns expressed by Members.

We are talking about procedure now.

Yes, I know. I have also decided to recommend this to Government. We will distribute it in the afternoon. Maybe we might suspend the Dáil now and postpone the vote, if that is in order.

I wish to be helpful. I accept what the Minister of State is saying and I welcome it. In view of the new wording that the Minister of State intends to present to Members, would it be possible for him to meet the respective spokespeople in order that they can have some input? I imagine it would make for an easier passage later on.

I strongly agree with that suggestion.

Will we defer taking the vote?

It is not a question of deferring the taking of the vote. We have defined a modus operandi to allow you to do what you wish to do. I asked you earlier, Minister of State, whether you had an amendment. Anyway, no amendments were tabled apart from the two from Deputies Daly and Wallace.

No others were tabled within the timeframe allowed.

In normal circumstances I would be putting the amendment. However, in the extenuating circumstances – this is a most unusual debate and, thankfully, it does not happen too often – does the Minister of State have a proposal?

In respect of the proposal, I would like time to distribute the amendments to my proposal to my colleagues.

No, you will have to find another way.

Can I suggest, procedurally, that the current motion be withdrawn and that an amended motion be tabled, to be taken in a short debate tomorrow?

You cannot amend this-----

I think Deputy Howlin's idea is sensible. We want to deal with this and we do not want to distract from the main issue of Grace.

Are you proposing the withdrawal of the motion?

Yes, that is right.

We can put forward a new amendment.

Let us do that on the understanding that the Business Committee will facilitate the tabling of a motion tomorrow.

Yes, on the understanding that the Business Committee will deal with it.

It should also be done on the understanding of what Deputy McGuinness said about consultation.

I think that is a sensible way to deal with it. Deputy Howlin outlined a way to deal with this last night and I commend him on it. I really think it requires the unanimous support of the House. It would be wrong to divide on it. Too much is at stake. I appeal to you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to find a way to allow us to do the business as he has described.

If I were to adhere to Standing Orders, we would be putting it to a vote or otherwise. The circumstances are extenuating. If the Minister of State proposes to withdraw it, then I will put it to the Minister of State that he should ask the Government Whip to convene a meeting of the Business Committee and decide on how we should proceed from here.

We need a procedural motion.

In the meantime, so that we have co-operation, I suggest to our colleagues, Deputy Daly and Deputy Wallace, that until there is a new motion they withdraw their amendments. That would clear the pitch.

We would have the right to re-submit, obviously.

Yes, with the right to re-submit.

The document we are proposing to amend has been withdrawn.

It is a matter of procedure. Knowing your experience in these matters, Deputy Daly, I imagine you would understand that.

No, I would not.

Is it agreed that the amendment-----

The idea is that the amendments would be withdrawn. However, when the next document is produced, Deputies could resubmit them.

Is it agreed that Deputies would withdraw their amendments? Agreed. Is it agreed that the Minister is withdrawing the motion? Agreed. The Business Committee will decide when the contents of the new motion are available. I hope you all understand that because it is as clear as water to me.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Is it agreed that the Minister is withdrawing the motion? Agreed. The Business Committee will decide when the contents of the new motion are available. I hope you all understand that because it is as clear as water to me.

Question, "That leave be given to withdraw the motion", put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 11.40 p.m. and resumed at 12 noon.
Barr
Roinn