Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Child sexual abuse is one of the most shameful aspects of this country's history. So much has been revealed in the past 25 years or so about child sexual abuse, particularly in the church and institutions, as well as some sporting bodies. It must be stated that while it was revealed in the past 25 years, I have no doubt there was an acceptance in society for some of this. People knew what was going on and turned a blind eye due to inappropriate deference to certain authorities, particularly the church and the State.

We are really discussing the consequences of the Ryan report today. That report showed that a failure on the part of the church and the State led to the systematic institutional abuse of children, with lives destroyed, maligned or ended as a result. It is vital for future generations that the experience of those who suffered at the hands of those in positions of power is not lost. Long after the victims have died, their testimonies will bear witness to a stark period in our country's history. I know there has been some discussion about the merits and demerits of the Bill. However, the fundamental merit of the Bill, and the reason we support it, is that these records will be publicly available. Up to now, that has not been the case. The Bill, therefore, represents a step forward. In some ways, it implements the Dáil motion from 2009 put forward by the Taoiseach of the day and subsequently accepted by all parties. It sought that records would not be destroyed and this Bill allows the preservation of those records, which is important.

We also recognise that the Bill comes about because of learning after the fact. We also accept that the Bill brings challenges and compromises. Having discussed the matter with officials and looked at the record of previous Ministers dealing with the legislation and the pre-legislative scrutiny, there were a number a compromises. The Government is acting in good faith with the Bill. I am not wedded to every aspect of the Bill and every time limit but I accept that the Government gave careful consideration to the matter before coming up with its proposals. I am willing to listen to the debate to see what points can be made before we make a final decision. We will certainly support the Bill on Second Stage and want it to move to Committee Stage.

In 2009, after the then Taoiseach, former Deputy Brian Cowen, met victims, the Government brought forward a motion to the effect that, where possible, the documentation of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse should be preserved. Certainty with respect to these records was not guaranteed at the time due to legal advice. The interviews and other records of these inquiries had been given in total confidence, and we must bear that in mind. They were not initially intended for use in other forums, and that is why the Minister is bringing forward this required legislation. These circumstances mean that we are in a difficult position and that the passing of this legislation will be difficult.

The records held by the State were gathered for a particular purpose, which was to establish the facts in the inquiry, which did a fantastic job in that respect. It brought this horror to our attention. Let us be honest, however, as some of the facts that were in the report were quite well known to people in different communities where some of this abuse was taking place. There is absolutely no doubt that the country turned a blind eye to it in that regard. The records of the commission were originally to be destroyed following the completion of its work, as is standard. However, following the findings in the report, there was broad acceptance that the testimonies and records provided in the creation of these reports were of vital historical significance. The Ryan report is of vital historical significance. I accept the Minister's point that the Ryan report goes into considerable depth and detail in what it describes of the horror and the historical position.

After the Ryan report and following a meeting of the then Taoiseach and the victims, as well as the Dáil motion, there was significant support for the retention of records. Everybody in the House agreed that the records should be retained, and nobody stated that the original position should have obtained. We will change that with the legislation, which is significant, and it should be acknowledged that this part of the Bill is not controversial and should be welcomed. It is a positive decision to retain records, as if we do nothing or the legislation stalls, these records will not become public at any point.

I have mentioned the historical silence and the blind eye that was given to these scandals, so it would run counter to everything we have learned to destroy those documents. It is vital that they be recognised as part of a history that some people may wish to forget; we should never forget it. The question then becomes how we can achieve this while respecting the wishes of those who shared their experiences in total confidence so we could learn the truth. We must put in place measures to ensure records of such importance are preserved, while simultaneously respecting the real stories and deeply personal testimonies of the individuals engaged with redress bodies. I have been informed that the documents contain a number of allegations and that if they were published prematurely, the allegations might not stand the test of court action. This is an avenue into which the Oireachtas should not lead the State. Reopening matters with the accidental release of unredacted or incorrectly redacted information would be a grave disservice to all those who gave their time to this report and investigation. Furthermore, in situations where survivors who participated in these investigations do not wish to disclose their personal experiences, we must respect and protect their wishes.

I see some merit in the suggestion from certain campaigners that the records should be released in anonymised form. I am willing to listen to the arguments for that, although I am also willing to listen to the counterarguments that the Minister might address if he is not willing to agree to that suggestion. If I were making the decision, the first consideration would be the cost. I presume any amendment put down in this respect would be ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle because it would be a substantial cost to the Exchequer. I wonder who would do the job in a confidential way, as it would be an absolutely massive undertaking. Fianna Fáil is willing to listen to the arguments on this but my initial instincts are not supportive. Nevertheless, we can work collaboratively to get the right result in the end, or at least the best possible compromise. Essentially, we are compromising on the legal advice. The more information the Minister can give on that legal advice relating to the 75-year period, the more helpful it would be for the debate. I know that, as a matter of course, the Government does not issue the advice of the Attorney General. However, it would be extremely helpful for the Minister to go into as much detail as possible in that regard, either in his reply or on Committee Stage.

The Department of Education and Skills has apparently raised concerns about the security of information if such a project of anonymisation was implemented and I share such concerns. I also accept the point that the Ryan report goes a considerable distance in covering this matter, although it is not by itself the full record of the evidence taken in the process. The Department has also raised concerns about the scale of the project and mistakes that could be made in the 2 million sealed records. This is very understandable but, again, I am perfectly willing to listen to counterarguments, particularly on Committee Stage.

The Minister has explained to us that the proposed 75-year limit is aimed at achieving the retention of these records and the protection of those who gave testimony, essentially ensuring that those involved will have passed away when the information is released. The length of time in this legislation in no way diminishes the findings or the work of the commission, the residential institutions redress board and the review committee. I pay tribute to those involved in that difficult work. I will approach the legislation by understanding that this is an issue of compromise and everybody in this House wants to do right by the victims. I would certainly be extremely cognisant of any legal advice that the Government has described in good faith for the 75-year period. I know from various interactions that there are different views on this. Some people representing victims can see the point while others totally disagree with it.

We have already started the debate. We will have a much more detailed debate on Committee Stage. I look forward to that. We will engage in the process in as constructive a fashion as is possible, with the needs of victims and history in our mind. History has an awful habit of repeating itself. We may all be horrified by child sexual abuse in this country but more people seem to pay no regard to what happened in Nazi Germany, for example. Those lessons of history about that particular evil should be remembered and the lessons of history in this country about child sexual abuse should always be remembered.

There are so many competing reasons for the debate that will take place in respect of this Bill but first and foremost, it must be about the victims of this terrible abuse and ensuring it never happens again.

See this speech in context