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

I thank the witnesses for the detailed notes they sent. I have noted the various points they made. In regard to the indemnification issue, one of the proposals put to us suggests the Bill is too comprehensive, which relates to the point Ms Byrne made regarding registration and to the points the banks and others made regarding the sale of articles when the boxes are opened. My view, having listened to the perspectives, is that a fair point is being made. When we were drawing up the Bill, I had the assistance of two draftspersons but I am the person who was responsible for the content. I felt it would be better to be too comprehensive and then remove aspects than to meet in committee and decide it was so tight as to have no range. The idea of taking out aspects, therefore, is to a certain extent welcome, and that issue could be dealt with. The issue of indemnification could be looked at again, but if the banks are not going to dispose of the sale but rather hold on to them, that is fine. I would have thought the banks would like to get rid of some of these things and free up space, but that is a different issue and it is one for the banks. If the banks are happy that way, that is fine.

On data protection and privacy rights, the provision for starting with the oldest boxes was a conscious decision for several strategic reasons, one of which is that it is less likely an owner would be found. It is not impossible, given there could be a titled person who had kept careful records, with wills down through ten generations. That is fine, but it is less likely and, therefore, there was less jeopardy in doing that. If we find an issue we had not foreseen - I have never seen a comprehensive Bill come through the Houses in respect of which an issue has not arisen - the Houses of the Oireachtas can always amend legislation.

We try to do it as best we can but it is never perfect, no matter how much time we spend in here on Bills. The courts would not be so busy if everything was perfect. That issue will have to be looked at.

I was curious about the issue of data breaches, which are a worry. On the other hand, the next thing is Deloitte says the Dormant Accounts Fund opened 100 boxes. I was a little bit curious how those two points sat together but that was only a small point. I have dealt with the issue of indemnification. The registration was a protection that everybody knew about. If you are happy that the bank's records are adequate, it is not key to the bank. What is key is that there is a registration of everything that would be put on public display. Again, that issue can be looked at simply enough. We would note carefully the proposal of the committee, and the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media suggested that we just register the boxes that are of note.

Ms Byrne talks about safe keeping and safety deposit boxes. The legislation as drafted in the interpretation section is quite clear. One thing that always raised questions and causes confusion is the following. In legislation on housing, for example, it is whatever the Act defines it to be and so on. In this case "'safe deposit box' means any box, vault, or other safe keeping arrangement maintained by an institution for the safe storage of deposited property". Not only does it cover the things physically put in boxes but also art or anything else people might have put in. If it was too big to go in a box, it is covered. I see that the Banking & Payments Federation of Ireland seems to be suggesting it should not include this in the first phase. Why not? If we start back in 1790, 1800 or 1810, why would we not look at everything that is in safekeeping? It is unlikely the person who put it there will reappear and look for it back. There is a strong obligation to try to find the owner, so if there is some case where we think we can identify the owner, we have to go to every length to do so, as in the case of Dormant Accounts Fund money. What is intended here is that it covers all items.

I am curious about the following point. We do not want to open any boxes at this stage but would it be possible to approach, say, the Bank of Ireland on College Green, which is the oldest bank in the country, and be shown where all of this stuff is kept? I am sure the committee would love to see how much space is there and what size boxes or materials are in safekeeping there. I would say that might bring a bit of reality to the Bill from our point of view. I would say a lot of us are curious as to how much stuff there is.

I mention historic artifacts and what was personal 150 or 200 years ago could be of public interest nowadays, including letters and so on. We should not underestimate what might be there because if it was modern or current in that it was written two weeks ago, for example, it would be covered under all sorts of other legislation. Leaving that aside, it would not be as interesting as title deeds and so on that went back a long way. If there are title deeds to property, I doubt if, under modern law, they would have any relevance, but if they had, they would be relevant to the Land Registry and so on if somebody wanted to claim the property, and I am sure they would be glad to get it back to whoever was meant to own it. I doubt if there would be many cases where there would be a dispute based on documents going that far back, although I have seen stranger things. I remember a court case in Connemara and they went back to the 1500s or 1600s to establish a claim to a marine property. Stranger things have happened, but if that happens, the person who has a claim, if they can prove they have ownership and substantiate that claim, would have rights.

I thank the Banking & Payments Federation Ireland for the contribution. All the contributions we have received to date have been exceptionally positive. There are issues in something as complex as this, and we foresaw that. We tried to be as thorough as possible, and so far there seems to be mention of taking things out, which I am personally pleased with, rather than putting a whole lot of things in. That is a great tribute to the drafters who helped me and who did a lot of research on the background law to this. They looked at a lot of issues such as privacy rights, property rights, EU law, Irish law and so on. They did a really thorough job.

I do not have too many questions. I have responded to points Ms Byrne has made. I will leave it to the Cathaoirleach to interact on what I have said.