Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Departments for the detailed engagement at this stage of the process. What we are doing is what would have been done if the Bill had been developed in one of the Departments. All this consultation would have taken pace as a matter of course long before we got this far. When it is a Private Member's Bill, however, Deputies do not have those privileges of access. Many of the points raised are valid and could be dealt with. While reading the written submissions, I was considering the focus of the Bill and how to mitigate the risk the witnesses have clearly highlighted. We need to keep in mind that explicit in the Bill is that someone starts with the oldest boxes first. There is a reason for that. It is very unlikely that a person from 1782, 1783, 1784 and so on, or a known successor of that person, will appear. As someone goes forward, a practical idea will be built up. When I was studying science, there was always the theory and then the practical implementation of the theory to see how it worked in practice and what were the risks. When we do things in practice, we sometimes gets unexpected results but, on the other hand, matters of theoretical concern do not always materialise in the real world.

The witnesses made a clear point that simplifies the Bill, namely, that if a box is opened and the contents are of no interest, the bank is told to keep it in storage and look after it. Thereafter, it is the bank's baby and should be kept safe in case a person comes looking for it. That would make the Bill a lot simpler. Whether the banks want to devote all that space in perpetuity to deposit boxes is not of concern to me. That was not a purpose of the Bill.

It would be very easy to limit the Bill at the stroke of a pen by extending the 80-year guideline to 100, 120 or 130 years. As I stated, someone would start with the older boxes and work forward to see how it goes and whether anything is being found. From a cultural point of view, a letter written in 1815 on an issue that might have been mundane at the time might be a lot more interesting now than a letter written in 1940, depending on the contents of the letter and who wrote it. I again make the point that by opening the oldest boxes first, some of the more interesting social history and so on might be found. As regards the idea of disposing of them, I accept there are good issues there. It struck me that if cash from 1850 is found, its nominal value would be very little but its real value significant if it was in notes. It would be even better if it is in coin, and better again if it was gold. The witnesses all seem to be making the same point, namely, that the Bill should be simplified and limited. There is a lot of merit in that.

Another issue relates to modern anti-money laundering law and dealing with things that are ancient in that regard.

I do not want to take up too much time at this stage. The idea of the register was that there was a record of everything that was opened in case anyone came back. The question is how detailed it needs to be. We obviously threw the kitchen sink at that. How detailed it needs to be or could be depends on what information is available.

The issue under the present law of archaeological artefacts has been mentioned. My understanding is that there is a date beyond which the State is fairly well indemnified. What is that particular date? It could be of relevance in this context.

As the person who drafted the Bill, I had access to very good drafters. In a committee such is this it is not necessarily possible to get into granular detail. I do not want to hold the committee up but I am unsure about who the appropriate person is, whether it is me as the drafter of the Bill or the committee, to ask for detailed engagement with the Department. We should sit down and go through what has been suggested by the officials, as well as the submission received from the Banking and Payments Federation Ireland, BPFI, and other matters that may arise. Would it be possible for the Departments to engage in more detail, with the objective of retaining the essence of the Bill, minimising the risk by looking at the older boxes first and perhaps having a higher threshold of what is old and, moving forward, taking on board what the Department has said? It might mean considerable redrafting or considering whether to have Second Stage with a new Bill or continue by way of amendment.

These are all issues. The next step, on which I do not need an immediate answer, is to find out if the Department will get involved in detailed engagement to allow me to bring proposals to the committee for pre-legislative scrutiny which we could write into our report. The answer to that can wait until the end of the meeting.