Analysis: The proposal is aimed at eliminating hostile cross-examination, writes Carol Coulter.
Next Tuesday sees the fifth anniversary of the Taoiseach's apology to the victims of abuse in residential institutions, which preceded the setting up of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse.
Since then its Confidential Committee has heard 856 stories of abuse by victims, but its Investigation Committee has not properly started its work.
At its inception the commission established two committees, the Confidential and the Investigation Committees. The Confidential Committee was to allow those who wished to have their story heard, without facing the harrowing prospect of cross-examination, to do so in confidence.
The Investigation Committee was charged with finding out precisely what happened, why, who knew about it, how such abuse could have been prevented and could be prevented in future.
However, this involved laying accusations against institutions and individuals, who were entitled to the full protection of the law against allegations which, if untrue, would have been devastating. Some 1,700 people made complaints to the Investigation Committee, and this would have led to 1,700 mini-trials, with most of the allegations contested.
This would have produced further trauma for the victims, as their stories would have been denied. It would also have cost upwards of €500 million in legal costs alone. A final report would have taken many years, during which time many of the victims and the alleged abusers would be dead.
Victims would be denied closure in their lifetime, and alleged perpetrators would either escape blame, or, if wrongly accused, die with the stain of the accusation on their names. When Mr Justice Ryan took over the chairmanship of the Commission from Ms Justice Laffoy he prepared a report proposing the reduction of the 1,700 cases in two ways.
First, he said he would write to all the people asking them if they wished to be transferred to the Confidential Committee. Second, the commission would then examine all the remaining claims, but would only hold hearings of those likely to lead to concrete information about patterns of abuse.
Yesterday's proposals go further. Not only does Mr Justice Ryan propose essentially to examine patterns of abuse, he is also proposing to exclude from the work of the commission the requirement to "name and shame" individuals alleged to have abused. A decision must be made on that, he said, before the commission can proceed to hold hearings on individual institutions.
This decision, which will be made after the various interested parties have had an opportunity to consider the proposal and make their views known later this month, must precede any hearings, as it will determine the procedures under which they will operate.
If individual abusers are being identified, then they have the right to representation and to cross-examine the accusers. That is likely to prove traumatic for the victims, especially if, as is likely in some instances, the accused individual is eventually exonerated. Mr Justice Ryan's proposal is aimed at eliminating, as far as possible, hostile cross-examination from the process.
There are other problems with detailed examination of individual cases, including the difficulty of getting a complete picture of events that happened up to half a century ago.
Mr Justice Ryan also said that continuing a policy of identifying individuals would mean prolonging the work of the commission so long that its real task - producing a meaningful report and recommendations for the future - would be postponed into the distant future.
While he and his team will be discussing this proposal with all those involved, and especially with victims' groups, it is clear they are convinced of the merits of this proposal.