Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for attending. I have two questions for him now and I may come in again later if there is an opportunity to do so.

The commission of investigation terms of reference required it to establish a confidential committee to provide a forum for people who were formerly resident in the institutions under investigation or who worked in these institutions during a relevant period to provide accounts of their experience in these institutions, in writing or orally, as informally as possible given the circumstances. The Clann Project and others have argued that the destruction of the audio files is, as already mentioned, a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 and section 31 of the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004, which states that it is an offence for a person to destroy information in any form relating to matters within a commission's terms of reference before it is dissolved. This commission is not dissolved yet. We have heard from witnesses that the report does not reflect the severity of their experiences and that it is not an adequate record of the testimonies they provided. More than 550 witnesses gave evidence to the confidential committee. The Minister has defended the commission's decision to destroy the audio files on the basis that it was done to protect people who wanted to speak in confidence to the inquiry. My questions follow on from Deputy Whitmore's questions. When did the Minister seek the advice of the Attorney General on this matter in terms of the commission's responsibility under the Data Protection Act 2018 and Commissions of Investigation Act 2004? Did he do so before or after the audio files were destroyed?

My next question relates to a matter that comes within the remit of the Minister's Department. On page 11 of the report of the confidential committee, it is stated that an electronic repository of information was set up to record the information provided by witnesses to the confidential committee. This repository contains the application form of the witness and the account of the experience described by the witness to the committee. The commission proposes to redact the names and other identifying information before submitting this repository as part of the commission's archives to the Minister. Unless the witnesses wants his or her name retained, the person's full story is retained in this process. Only a full transcript of each person's oral evidence, anonymised where instructed, can meet the threshold of retaining the person's full story in the confidential committee process. Can the Minister confirm whether a full transcript of each individual's oral evidence to the confidential committee was retained and submitted within the electronic repository of information submitted to his Department?