Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

My preferred outcome to this is that the Bill does not go ahead next week. Rather than making statements, I will go straight to questions to get the most out of the time we have. There are two common themes in the submissions, which are access for survivors to their own records from the commission report and the preservation of administrative voluntary testimony for historical education and understanding. This seems to be consistent in all submissions we received, even from people not represented among the witnesses.

The witnesses may want to take note of my questions as I have specific questions for specific individuals. My first question is for Dr. O'Rourke. Is it true, as the Minister has said, that the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000 and the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 provided for the destruction of all records? On Second Stage, the Minister promised to introduce an amendment to the Bill to review its operation after 25 years. There will certainly be amendments tabled by Opposition Deputies to reduce the 75-year ceiling period. I hear 30 years being discussed as a compromise. What are Dr. O'Rourke's views on this?

My next question is for Dr. Logue. Is it credible that legislation dealing with this level of sensitive personal data without once mentioning GDPR or the Data Protection Act could create a robust legal framework for retaining these records? Does the definition of personal data under GDPR provide that information about what other people have done to an individual is personal data? If the Bill is passed and a survivor who makes a data access request is told the retention of records Act has prohibited access to his or her own data, what options for recourse would that survivor have? What would be the likely outcome?

Will Ms Crowe speak to her practical experience of working under the section allowing the 30-year rule for records under the National Archives Act? Is she confident the records of the Ryan commission could be adequately dealt with under the section?

Will Dr. Buckley give us a sense of what we would lose in terms of our historical understanding of this period and the experiences of survivors if these records were sealed for 75 years?

Ms McDonnell Byrne spoke about the memorialising of records and the failure of the State so far. We had the site that was meant to be developed in Parnell Square. What else could the State do to make sure we memorialise and remember the experiences of survivors?