Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

I will not divide the House at this stage of the Bill, as we reach the last amendment. It strikes me as somewhat inconsistent that there are, as the Minister has said, certain professional requirements for those in the business of the delivery of a service to the public that all, or, in some cases, certain records be kept for a number of years. As far as some legislation is concerned, six years is the norm. For other professional bodies their duty is to keep records for five years.

The Minister, in his closing remarks on the amendment, adverted to this inconsistency. In terms of the statute of limitations, the limitations of actions and the onus or burden placed on professional bodies, I thought we would have an element of consistency and not only would the practitioners and professions be aware of it, but members of the general public would also be aware of the duty of care or the statutory duty, in the form of an obligation, to retain certain records and make them available.

I thought we were moving, in the bulk of legislation, towards a six-year rule. It now appears that the Minister is in favour of a five-year rule. I will not make a big deal about this but I thought the Department of Finance, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform or any other Department would strive for an element of consistency in this regard and not have different rules applying in different sets of circumstances in a way that is less than consistent and can give rise to an element of uncertainty or confusion on the part of the service providers and members of the general public. However, I will not divide the House on the issue.

See this speech in context