Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I understand the rationale for retention of these records. I believe there will be a historical value in these testimonies being available for future generations.

However, I do not think that is the point. The key point is that these people told their stories on the basis that they would be confidential. Historically, they were very much failed by the State and by the authorities responsible for looking after them. I have no doubt it took a hell of a lot for these people to come forward and tell their stories and personal experiences in very intimate detail to the commission, but this was on the basis that it would be confidential. I now have grave reservations about any decision to change those terms, allowing their stories to be told in 75 years' time whether they like it or not. As a State, we have an obligation to them on the basis on which they engaged with the State and the inquiries that were established.

Some of the people who gave testimonies are now deceased and there is no basis on which we can inquire retrospectively what their view would have been. However, they certainly would have departed this world believing that their engagement with the State under law was confidential and would not go any further. As we know, one of the things that is hardest to come across in life is discretion, and if you want to keep a secret, you keep it to yourself. People would think that if their engagement was based on law it would be pretty watertight and that it was unlikely that the State would then breach the terms of its engagement and commitment to them.

For those who are deceased, there is certainly a big issue. For those who, thankfully, are in good health and continue to be with us, I would imagine there is, at a minimum, a responsibility on the State to engage with them. We should put to them the rationale for the State's seeking to change the terms of its engagement with the commission and why it feels this would be valuable, and ask for their response and consent. As I said, I do not think it should be the case that we are going to do this whether people like it or not. We have an obligation to all citizens to respect their wishes, particularly those we have failed in the past.

Mr. Mulligan made the point that the more we anonymise, the more the value of the testimony diminishes. Names are very important because they continue on and, in 75 years, it will be difficult without names to trace who the person was. Where a name is given, it will be very straightforward and easy, but much of the impact of these stories could be protected and preserved without the name being there. It is more tricky in regard to the deceased members but, at a minimum, for those members who are willing to engage with the State at this stage, I would have thought their consent would be an important factor and that they should be consulted. Has the Department given consideration to this? What are its considerations and is it something to which it is still open?