SECTION 1

Background to Events Surrounding the Reconstitution of the Investigation

Committee

On the 2nd of September 2003 the Investigation Committee of the Commission

to Inquire into Child Abuse suspended its work and ceased to gather evidence in
accordance with its statutory powers. On the same date the then Chairperson,
Ms. Justice Laffoy notified the Government of her decision to resign to take
effect from the date of the publication of the Third Interim Report. On the 26th
September 2003, the Minister for Education announced the appointment by the
Government of Mr. Sean Ryan, S.C. as Chairperson designate of the
Commission. The Minister also announced that Mr. Ryan had been requested to
undertake his own independent review of the Commission and to make all
necessary recommendations having regard to the following:

1. “The interests of the victims of abuse;

2. The completion of the Commission's work within a reasonable period of

time and in a manner consistent with a proper investigation; and

3. To achieve objectives without incurring exorbitant costs.”

Mr. Justice Ryan's Review into the working of the Commission to Inquire into
Child Abuse and the Review of the Attorney General were published on the
14th January, 2004.

The Third Interim Report of the Commission was published on 30th January,
2004. This Report outlined the work of the Investigation Committee from its
inception to the date of cessation together with a history of the difficulties
encountered by the Committee in its attempt to fulfil its statutory remit.

Amongst such difficulties highlighted by the Third Interim Report were the
delay in setting up of a compensation scheme and the difficulty surrounding the
issue of the provision for the costs of legal representation.

These difficulties had a consequential knock on effect on the work of the

Committee, for example Complainants (and/or their legal advisors) refused to

1
submit statements of their proposed evidence in compliance with requests from
Inquiry Officers in accordance with Section 23 of the Act until these matters
had been finalised. These difficulties were ultimately addressed in the Redress
Act of 2002.

The Investigation Committee then imposed a deadline of the 30th June, 2002 for
receipt of Complainant statements. At the expiration of this date, statements had
been provided by 1,800 Complainants. In early January 2003 in an effort to
accelerate the preliminary inquiries, a final date for Respondent statements was
imposed — which deadline was 2nd May, 2003. However, in exceptional cases
the deadline was extended to September, 2003.

The Third Interim Report also highlighted practical difficulties inherent in the
nature of the complaints themselves. For example where single Complainants
referred to a number of institutions and a number of Respondents. The
investigation of complaints was further complicated by the age of the
Complainants and the number of deceased, incapacitated and untraced
Respondents.

The time delay between the commencement of the Review process of the
Investigation Committee's Mandate in December, 2002 — and publication of
the Review reports in January, 2004 further inhibited the work of the
Committee.

Ms. Justice Laffoy's resignation took effect on the 12th December, 2003 and Mr.
Justice Ryan's chairmanship commenced on the 15th December, 2003.

As I have previously indicated Mr. Justice Ryan’s Review into the workings of
the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was published on 14th January,
2004 and in that review he made the following recommendations.

• That the Investigation Committee would write to Complainants asking

if they wished to proceed with their - complaints.

• That the Investigation Committee would carry out a preliminary

review/examination of complaints so as to eliminate those which had no
prospect of being proven in evidence: and would then write to solicitors

2
 on record for those Complainants and suggest that those Complainants
should consider transferring to the Confidential Committee;

• That work would be divided into smaller units of inquiry

• That all Complainants in a particular unit of inquiry might be

represented by the same Solicitor;

• That the proceedings in each unit of inquiry would be by way of joint

hearings;

• That counsel for the committee would conduct the questioning of

witnesses – this is in contrast to the practice to date where questioning
was conducted primarily by members of the Investigation Committee;

• That evidence would be taken in written form;

• That non-controversial evidence would be heard by a sole member of

the Committee and,

• That Interim Reports would be published at the conclusion of each unit

of inquiry.

Mr. Justice Ryan furthermore suggested a number of statutory amendments to

the legislation which he set out in some detail in his review. There is no need
for me to detail those proposals at this point.

SECTION 2

What has been done since

Upon Mr. Justice Ryan's appointment to chair the Investigation Committee, the
Committee resumed its work and proceeded with its gathering and assessment
of evidence. Its work included:

3
• The recruitment of administrative staff and legal counsel to fill
vacancies created by the suspension of the work of the committee in
September, 2003.

• As already stated by the Chairperson in his Review, one of the

immediate concerns of the Committee was the absence in the
Commission's team of an experienced solicitor. The Committee has
made arrangements for an in-house solicitor with the sanction of the
Departments of Education and Science and Finance and she will take up
office later in the year when she becomes available. In the meantime,
there was urgent need for short-term provision of services of a solicitor.
We now have sanction to deal with this.

• The existing system for case and document management employed by

the Committee is inadequate for the purposes of the inquiry. Efforts
have been made to identify and to procure the most appropriate system
available to deal with the type and volume of documentation generated
and received by the Committee.

• The Commission is mindful that a considerable body of work has been

done by solicitors for parties to the Investigation Committee - including
the preparation of statements and sometimes the preparation for and the
conducting of hearings over a prolonged period of time, without receipt
of any payment until very recently. This has now been addressed.

• Members of the Investigation Committee and its legal team have

reviewed voluminous international literature and have made contact
with experts and persons in other jurisdictions experienced in and with
the area of child abuse. The Committee has found these contacts to be
helpful and informative and intends to continue to liase in relation to
matters of common interest.

• Submissions in relation to Mr. Justice Ryan's Report and the Attorney

General’s Review were widely sought from all parties registered with
the Investigation Committee. This is something to which we will return
later.

4
• Members of the legal team have been meeting on a continual basis with
victims’ groups, their representatives and with the representatives of the
Respondents and of government departments. These meetings have
been conducted informally and with openness; views have been
exchanged sometimes with some force. The legal team and the
Committee have gained enormously from these meetings and have tried
to clarify as best they can issues and concerns raised at these meetings.
The legal team has considered all representations made in formulating
the approach set out this morning. This informal process must now
move on to a more formal plane, which will allow an early finalisation
of all questions relating to the direction of and way forward for the
Investigation Committee.

• Members of the Committee's legal team have visited the archives of

Regulatory and Managerial Respondents for the purpose of assessing
the nature, type and volume of documentation situated therein to
facilitate the discovery process.

• The Chairperson of the Investigation Committee has issued sixty (60)

discovery directions since January, 2004. These directions have issued
to the Department of Education, Department of Finance, the
Department of Justice, religious congregations and congregational
managerial authorities responsible for the management of Industrial and
Reformatory Schools. Thirty eight (38) of the directions are institution
specific and encompass the Industrial and Reformatory Schools in
relation to which twenty or more complaints are pending before the
Investigation Committee.

• The Committee's legal team has identified additional potential

witnesses, a number whom have been and are in the process of being
interviewed

• The Committee's legal team has commenced preparatory work

identifying "units of inquiry" with a view to scheduling potential
institutions for hearings.

5
 • The Christian Brothers have appealed the decision of Mr. Justice Abbott
to the Supreme Court. The hearing of the appeal is scheduled for the
29th June, 2004. The Committee's legal team is preparing for this
appeal.

SECTION 3

A review of the submissions received

Seventeen (17) written submissions requiring consideration were furnished.

These were submitted by the following parties:

Individual Complainants: (1 submission)

Solicitors for Complainants (4 submissions)

Survivor group(s) (4 submissions)

Solicitors for individual Respondents (1 submission)

Solicitors for congregations, who are management Respondents

in the process (6 submissions)

Chief State Solicitor

Minister for Education and Science

These submissions, although apparently small in number, in fact represent the

views of a substantial number of individual participants. For example, the
solicitors for Complainants who made submissions represent between them
more than one thousand and fifty four individual Complainants.

6
In general these may be divided into two categories; those from or representing
the views of Complainants, and those from or representing the views of
Respondents.

A. Nine submissions were made by or on behalf of Complainants:

• Four of these submissions are against any form of sampling;

• Three of these want the Committee to ask all Complainants whether

they wish to continue within the Investigation Committee. Of these, one
suggested that the Complainants should be furnished with the
Respondent statements prior to or at the same time as when they were
asked whether they wished to continue;

• Two of these submissions request "naming and shaming". Of these, one

contended that it would be unfair to "all the good people" who worked
in institutions to be tarred with the same brush;

• One of these submissions accepts that although in some circumstances

it would be inappropriate to name an individual, the institution
nevertheless should be named;

• One of these submissions objects to joint hearings;

• One of these submissions maintains that the main reason for past
difficulties was inadequate resources.

B. Six submissions were made by or on behalf of Respondents

• Three of these submissions call for the abolition of “naming and

shaming”;

• Two of these submissions object to the concept of joint hearings;

• Three of these submissions object to any dilution of the private nature

of the hearings;

7
 • Two of these submissions state that they agree to the Committee writing
to Complainants in order to ascertain whether they wish to continue in
the process;

• Most of the congregational Respondent submissions are of the view that

the Committee should have discretion as to who it decides to hear.
Some however express a wish to reserve their rights regarding those
who are not heard.

• Some of the congregational Respondent submissions seek to have their

members names publicly exonerated in circumstances where no finding
of abuse has been made. One of the concerns expressed is that if the
Committee does not adopt this approach there could be an “assumption
of collective guilt”.

• Three of the Respondent submissions call for context and memory

hearings and for the provision of expert reports.

• Many of the Respondent submissions dwelt on the issue of identifying

persons who are alleged to have committed abuse and this is an issue to
which I will return.

SECTION 4

The Way Forward - The Next Steps

A. Obligation of the Investigation Committee to hear all

Complainants

Everybody in the process recognises and acknowledges the need for closure.
Many but not all recognise the importance of achieving closure within a
reasonable period of time. As matters currently stand the Investigation
Committee has in excess of 1,700 Complainants, each of whom make
allegations against a number of Respondents. Heretofore, the Investigation
Committee has conducted what in essence is a mini-trial in respect of the

8
allegations made by each of these individuals. If each of these mini- trials were
on average to conclude within just two days, it would take the Investigation
Committee in excess of 10 years to hear all complaints assuming that hearings
were conducted six days a week without any break during that period.

It is self evident that the Investigation Committee does not have the capacity to
hear 1,700 mini-trials.

The indications are that there is likely to be some drop off in the number of
Complainants who actually wish to proceed before the Investigation
Committee. It is not known to what extent this drop off will occur.

The question in this context is whether it is necessary to hear all Complainants

who wish to give evidence before the Investigation Committee.

Complainant representative groups have said in consultation that all those who
wish to be heard should be entitled to a hearing. It is fair to say that they were
almost unanimous on this point.

However, the Commission in papers submitted to the Attorney General dated

29th January 2003 and 12th February 2003, the Attorney General in his review
to the Government (published 14th January 2004) and Mr. Justice Ryan in his
Review (published 14th January 2004) all agree that the Investigation
Committee should not be under an obligation to hear all Complainants who
wished to be heard, and that it is necessary to confer on the Committee a
discretion in determining which cases need to go to a full hearing.

The Inquiry is mandated to determine the causes, nature, circumstances and

effect of abuse. It is mandated to determine the extent to which the institutions
themselves contributed to the occurrence or instance of abuse having regard to
their systems of management, administration, supervision and the regulation of
those institutions. This Inquiry should be about broader issues then questions of
personal individual culpability.

If the Investigation Committee is required to conduct a large number of mini-

trials, then its capacity to inquire into the abuse of children at an institutional

9
level in a meaningful and purposeful way having regard to the spirit of the
legislation is effectively defeated.

The legal team proposes that the Investigation Committee should hear as much
evidence as required to establish whether abuse took place in any given
institution. For this purpose it may well be that it will have to hear all
Complainants who make allegations against that institution. However, it is
desirable that the Investigation Committee would have a discretion as to the
Complainants whom it wishes to call. In essence, the main focus of the inquiry
should whether abuse took place at an institutional level and in any given
institution and how much and of what nature. The evidence of witnesses should
be at the discretion of the Investigation Committee with the advice of its legal
team, and in those circumstances it may be unnecessary to hear all available
witnesses in respect of a given institution.

Accordingly, the legal team has proposed that the Investigation Committee will
ask the Government to introduce the appropriate amending legislation to the
Act of 2000 to provide it with the required discretion.

B. Decision to conduct a hearing into “Naming and Shaming”

I now return to the issue of “Naming and Shaming”. In his review Mr. Justice
Ryan had the following to say:

"The inquiry into child abuse can survive a prohibition on naming individuals.
But it cannot survive a prohibition on naming institutions. The Investigation
Committee would be entirely toothless in its capacity to inquire and would be
confined to reporting that abuse of a particular kind happened on some
occasion somewhere in Ireland.”

Later when considering this issue in the context of the Christian Brothers
challenge to the Act he points out::

. “The question of course is bound to come up for consideration at the

inquiry even if the Courts entirely reject the challenge."

10
 The question is whether in fact the Investigation Committee should continue
with its previously expressed policy (irrespective of its power to do so) of
naming individual perpetrators in the majority of cases.

Given that the Investigation Committee has already indicated an interpretation

of the Legislation which tends to require the naming of perpetrators in the
majority of cases, the view of the legal team of the Investigation Committee is
that a change in this position should not take place without affording interested
parties an opportunity to be heard on the issue.

Accordingly, the Investigation Committee has circulated a paper which is

available today and will appear on the Commission’s web site. The Paper
details the policy which the Commission has adopted to date, the procedural
implications of that policy, it identifies the approach taken in other inquiries
internationally, identifies the arguments for and against naming and the likely
consequences of maintaining or alternatively, changing the status quo.

It is proposed that the Investigation Committee will afford interested parties an

opportunity to make submissions on this issue in open session commencing on
May 24th 2004 at a The Distillery Building, Church Street, Dublin 7.

SECTION 5

The Intention to Conduct an Initial General Public Hearing into “The

Emergence of Child Abuse”

Pending the determination of the challenge to the Act which is listed for hearing
in the Supreme Court on June 29th and the implementation of any legislative
change(s) which may be required it is proposed that the Investigation
Committee convenes a public hearing, the purposes of which will be fourfold:

• To establish on a historical basis how child abuse as an issue emerged

in the State. It is intended to call witnesses with expertise in the area of

11
 social history to address this issue and to give an account of institutional
child care during the relevant period.

• To invite representatives of victims’ groups to recount how their

particular group came into being, its objectives and the manner in which
it has to date set about achieving those objectives.

• To call representatives of Government and of the relevant Government

departments to explain the context and meaning of the apologies which
have emanated from the State and to place in context the establishment
of the Redress Board.

• To call representatives of relevant religious congregations to explain the

meaning of the apologies which they made to victims of abuse and to
place in context the contributions they have made to the Statutory
Redress Scheme

It is envisaged that evidence in relation to these matters will be adduced in a

non-adversarial manner. It is intended that this will be an information seeking
process and whilst questions from parties will be entertained, the need for cross-
examination is not expected to arise at this stage.

This part of the inquiry will take place in June and will be held in public at the
Distillery Building, Church Street, Dublin 7. The Committee looks forward to
receiving the cooperation and assistance of all parties.

SECTION 6

An Outline of the Approach to Procedure Generally

I think it is fair to say that in so far as hearings are concerned, the difficulties
encountered by the Investigation Committee have centred on:

• The duration of hearings where a person’s reputation is at risk.

• The legal challenges to the work of the Investigation Committee

(including possible repercussions) and the fact that a successful

12
 outcome for the Committee, does not necessarily mean that the
issues raised are going to go away.

• In recognition of the fact that to put participants through the

process of giving evidence more than once is abhorrent it is
essential to do everything possible to ensure that procedures are
right before embarking on the commencement of hearings.

The paramount concerns of the Investigation Committee must include the

desirability of closure and the reduction where possible of the adversarial nature
of the process of inquiry.

The Law Commission of Canada identifies a guiding principle in this context

“Do no further harm.”

This principle should be seen as a guiding star to help us navigate through the
task which lies ahead.

It is apparent that much of the difficulty encountered in attempting to put in

place procedures which comply with the law and are satisfactory to all parties,
have stemmed from the very disparate nature of the types of issues which have
to be considered.

For example, procedures that may be appropriate and effective to deal with an
issue arising from a direct complaint against a named individual of serious
sexual abuse may be wholly inappropriate in dealing with a largely collective
contention of serious neglect and deprivation on the part of a number of persons
who were present in an institution at a relevant time. It might properly be
commented that a "one size fits all" approach to procedures just will not work.

To move from a position where naming is the norm to one where naming is the
exception is likely to result in a whole range of other aspects of the process
going ahead on a basis which is different to heretofore.

• As previously stated, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Ryan, the

Investigation Committee has resumed the pursuit of documents and

13
 records through the process of discovery, the completion of which will
take some time.

The procedures regarding the timing of the provision of documentation

to the parties is under review and the legal team has proposed to the
Investigation Committee that it will circulate all statements and
accompanying documentation as soon as practicable.

When the Committee is in receipt of documentation furnished by way

of discovery, it is proposed that such documentation as is relevant will
be furnished to each interested party. Once all parties interested in a
particular institution have received relevant documentation, the
Committee will convene a preliminary hearing in respect of that
institution.

• At that hearing, the Respondents will be invited to stipulate in respect of

the allegations contained in the Complainant’s statements and to
indicate which, if any, of the allegations made are considered to be well
founded, whether in part or in their entirety and to identify those which
remain in serious dispute.

An opportunity will be given to parties to address procedural issues

specific to the institutional hearing then proposed. It is hoped that all
issues in relation to procedural matters can be agreed between the
parties. Where this is not possible it is proposed that the Investigation
Committee will rule thereon.

• It is proposed that after that preliminary hearing the Committee will

issue a list of witnesses whom it intends to call, the order in which such
witnesses will be called and it will specify a date on which the matter
will commence.

When all of the parties have had a reasonable opportunity to consider

the evidence likely to be presented, it is proposed that hearings in
respect of a relevant institution will take place. It is likely that these will
commence with a public session, which will have the effect of setting

14
 the scene in respect of that institution, and placing on the record any
general non-controversial evidence concerning the nature of the
institution.

• After such public hearing, the Investigation Committee will go into

private session for the purposes of hearing evidence of specific
instances of abuse. It is proposed that the way in which such evidence
will be heard may be the subject of discussion between the Investigation
Committee's legal team, and all interested parties, and may be tailor-
made for the issues which arise in that institution, having regard,
amongst other things to any concessions that may have been made.

It is proposed that the Investigation Committee will conduct as much as

possible of the hearings in public so that general questions which do not
involve going into the detail of individual instances of alleged abuse,
will, as a matter of normal practice, be the subject of public hearings.

SECTION 7

Expert Evidence

A number of written submissions included reference to the question of expert

evidence. This matter also came up for discussion in the course of the
consultation process.

The Investigation Committee recognises that there is a range of areas of expert

evidence where the conclusions reached have the capacity to be relevant to all
or to a significant number of institutions. One of the difficulties encountered in
the past in attempting to put forward working procedures stemmed from the
competing requirements to: -

• Avoid repeating expert evidence or permitting the same area of

expertise to be re-litigated in a series of cases, on the one hand; and

15
 • The importance of ensuring that any person potentially affected by a
determination (and in respect of whom it may, therefore, be said that the
expert evidence forms part of the "case" against such person), is given a
reasonable opportunity to be heard in respect of such expert evidence.

The legal team is of the view that the following would be an effective and
appropriate means of dealing with most if not all such areas.

A. The Committee should identify areas of general application which would

benefit from obtaining an expert view. The Investigation Committee is
actively seeking to identify such areas and an invitation is issued to all
concerned parties to propose areas which would benefit by early expert
evidence.

At present the legal team has identified the following areas of expertise
which the Investigation Committee may feel suitable to be dealt with in this
manner:

• Memory and the effect of lapse of time on memory — This may be a

matter of general application.

• Funding and how such funding was dispersed — This may be a matter
of general application insofar as the availability of State funding is
concerned. It may also be a matter of concern to a specific institution
insofar as an institution may have had its own specific source of
funding, for example, a commercial enterprise or a series of enterprises
carried within that institution or from other sources of funding specific
to that particular institution.

• General health issues such as and including bed-wetting or infestation

dealing with the prevalence of such conditions in the public at large and
the recognised and medically accepted best practice for the treatment of
such conditions at the relevant point in time. Again such issues may be
or general application but also of specific application in that they may
be specific to a Complainant or institution in question.

16
B. It is envisaged that the Investigation Committee will commission from an
independent expert a report on the "state of knowledge" in respect of any
given area, including where appropriate, a report setting out competing
views which are widely held within the expert community.

C. In the event that the expert report shows a clear preponderance of expert
opinion in respect of the matter concerned, the Investigation Committee will
communicate the contents of the expert report to all interested parties, invite
them to comment thereon, and indicate in general terms that, in the absence
of any contest in respect of any or all of the contents of such report, it will
be the intention of the Investigation Committee to continue with its hearings
on the assumption that what is stated in the expert report concerned is
correct. The Investigation Committee will in any event reserve to itself the
entitlement to review that matter should the circumstances require.

D. In the event that the expert report itself discloses significantly different
competing expert views or in the event that any interested party puts
forward a competing expert view which differs to a significant and material
extent from the Committee’s report, then it is proposed that the
Investigation Committee may consider making provision for an appropriate
hearing or hearings to resolve any such issues

The legal team is of the view that a distinction may be made between expert
evidence which has the potential to be relevant to a significant number of
separate institutions, and may thus, be said to be of general application, expert
evidence that may be relevant only to a single institution, and expert evidence
which may be relevant to an individual accusation. Evidence relevant only to a
single institution can be dealt with as part of the general scene setting evidence
for that institution and it does not require to be attended to with the same degree
of urgency as evidence of more general application. The same applies with even
greater force in respect of evidence likely to be relevant only to one, or a small
number of individual allegations of abuse. It is however important that areas of
general application are identified in early course so that they may be the subject

17
 of specific public hearings in accordance with the process suggested above, at
an early stage, if the Investigation Committee considers that to be appropriate.

SECTION 8

“Otherwise than in Public”

One of the questions which will determine the way in which private hearings of
evidence relating to specific instances of abuse are conducted is the question of
the interpretation of the requirement that those hearings be "otherwise than in
public".

The legal team has recommended to the Investigation Committee that this
requirement should not be applied in a way that prohibits the presence, at a
particular unit of inquiry, of more than one person who makes an allegation of
abuse against the institution under investigation. The purpose of this
recommendation is to allow all relevant evidence, in respect of the particular
unit of inquiry, to be conveniently heard together and in the presence of all
interested parties.

Section 9

The Schedule of Hearings in Respect of Individual Institutions

The legal team has prepared a suggested schedule of hearings which it will
endeavour to follow over the course of the forthcoming months. It is not
possible at this remove to be absolutely certain as to the duration of any
particular phase of the inquiry. The Committee has already received a very
large volume of documentation pursuant to discovery directions which have
issued. The process of identifying and obtaining documents of relevance
continues and the Investigation Committee’s ability to keep to its proposed
dates will be effected by its capacity to process the documentation which is
received.

18
 The schedule sets out the order in which it is proposed the Committee will
conduct its inquiries into the named institutions. Insofar as alterations to dates
are required, such alterations will be posted on the Commissions website and
parties will obtain adequate notice.

The following is the proposed schedule of hearings:

24th – 28th May: Public hearings on discussion document

16th June: Decision of the Investigation Committee on discussion document Hearing

18th June: Issues – St. Joseph’s Industrial School, Ferryhouse

21st – 30th June: Hearings:- The emergence of child abuse

5th – 23rd July: Hearings: -St Joseph’s Industrial School, Ferryhouse

26th July: Issues – Artane Industrial School

28th July: Issues – St. Vincent’s Industrial School, Goldenbridge

4th September: St Joseph’s Industrial School, Ferryhouse continued; urgent hearings; discrete cases .
Issues:- St Patrick’s Industrial School, Upton

5th October: Artane Industrial School

Decision to Write to Individual Complainants

In his review, Mr. Justice Ryan indicated that he would write to all of the
Complainants to inquire whether it was their intention to proceed before the
Investigation Committee. In the course of submissions and consultations
interested parties have asked why this has not yet been done.

The reason is that it seemed unfair to ask Complainants to indicate their wishes
in this regard before they knew the nature of the changes that were proposed.

The Investigation Committee intends now writing to each Complainant. Such a

letter has been prepared and it will go out next week. Efforts have been made to
set out in a clear succinct and transparent manner the choices available and the
likely consequences of exercising these choices.

19
Representations have been made to the Investigation Committee as to the
manner in which it should communicate this letter to Complainants. There is a
lack of agreement as to whether the Committee should notify Complainants
personally or whether they should be notified through their solicitors. Most
Complainants have made their application to the Investigation Committee
through solicitors. However, the representatives of victims’ groups have asked
that this letter be sent to Complainants personally.

It has been decided that this letter will be sent to all Complainants individually.
It will be sent to the address which they gave in their initial application unless
notification of a change of address has been furnished in which case it will go
the new address.

At the same time, the Committee will also write to each Complainant’s solicitor
notifying them of the position and enclosing a copy of its letter to their clients.

In conclusion, I wish to put on record at this stage something which emerged in

the course of the consultations conducted with many of the interested parties.
What emerged from those meetings was a unified view that this Commission
faces a difficult but important and valuable task It was clear that there is a
willingness and desire from all concerned parties to be of assistance to the
Commission and a desire that the Commission establish the truth of what
happened so that lessons may be learned to the benefit of future generations.

On behalf of the legal team I wish to express our gratitude to the parties for the
assurances and good wishes, which they have expressed. Whilst many may
find the changes proposed difficult, it is hoped that the need for such changes
will be recognised, and that the Investigation Committee will be able to proceed
with its work to an appropriate conclusion.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, ladies and gentleman the only other
thing which I wish to say at this time thank you for your patience.

20