Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I have a couple of questions. If we go down the road of new legislation, I would not want to compound the hurt inflicted on children and particularly on those who have given evidence. I have read some of their submissions, some of which concern reputational damage to organisations. We are stuck in this difficult situation. This is a significant departure. Perhaps Mr. Mulligan would explain where the demand for this has come from. He mentioned an announcement made by the former Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, in the Dáil. Has the demand come from academics, historians or the survivors themselves? What is the scale of the records being dealt with? How many records are involved? What are the criteria for keeping and not keeping records? How many individuals' records are involved? Why did the Minister decide not to have a consultation process on the issue? That is a significant matter. The complaint throughout has been that people have not been involved in the process. The next step for the committee is whether it will allow those individuals to give their views, or perhaps that is a discussion for later on. Is there a concern about legal action, given that testimony was given on the basis of confidentiality which is now being breached, or is that provided for in the new legislation?

What will happen to the records held by the Education Finance Board? Why are they not being included in the legislation? In one of the submissions, Irish Survivors of Child Abuse, Irish SOCA, complained bitterly about institutional vandalism. I am conscious that the witnesses may not be able to answer some of these questions. Why were those records destroyed if we are concerned about keeping records? Will the Minister make a commitment that there will be no exemptions in the sealing of the records as per the concerns of Irish SOCA? That is an issue the witnesses may not be able to address, but the Minister needs to return to the committee with that information. Will the Minister listen to the concerns of survivors who do not agree with this initiative?

There needs to be a consultation process so that this is not just landed on people. Many people who went through the process said it opened old wounds and was the worst thing they had done. They had wanted to tell their story but were left devastated as individuals. What are the implications of any legal actions being taken? Have any of these records been accessed to assist with the prosecution of individuals or are they kept separate?

The 75-year limit confuses me. Why is it 75 years? Is it just a ballpark figure? The witnesses said there was a legal recommendation but why was it not 50 years? I presume a lot of the people affected would be dead within 50 years. Why is it 75 years? Why is it not 100 years? When the data are handed over to the National Archives who will be legally responsible for the records? Does the Department of Education and Skills lose its responsibility for them?