Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. I appreciate their tone as well. We are all very aware of the sensitivity around this matter. I am also conscious of the legal responsibilities. I have listened to individual contributions tonight, as I want to get this right for the people who have suffered and endured lives that, in many cases, are difficult to imagine. Collectively, the House has that responsibility and duty.

I will reiterate the competing imperatives in this legislation. There is a legal onus, a legal interpretation and issues of confidentiality. Many of the witnesses' contributions were given in confidence. This is one of the competing imperatives for me. The records contain findings of fault against individuals. Due to the assurances of confidentiality, those allegations were not tested in the way they would have been in a court of law. This is why there are serious concerns about the right to privacy, the right to a good name and legitimate expectations of confidentiality. As a result, the legal advice is that early release of the records could be open to legal challenge from survivors and alleged perpetrators of abuse. That is one argument. Other arguments have been put relating to, for example, the period of time being too long, but there are competing parts. For example, people have given information and testimony. There are parents who have not informed their children about what happened but who, due to the structure of confidentiality, were comfortable and prepared to give this information. I am very conscious of that aspect. The lengthy period is to minimise the possibility of traumatising individuals who might be traumatised by the release of their records, for example, parents who never told their children about their experiences and people who had to go into detail about the abuse they suffered.

I re-emphasise the importance of the Ryan report and memorialisation, matters that were raised by a number of Deputies. The report is a very revealing history of institutional abuse and contains many stories of abuse - not just sexual abuse, but abuse in its many forms. We must ensure that there is a continued awareness of the report, its contents and its findings. I am anxious to consider further how best to achieve the memorialisation of the entire institutional experience.

Regarding anonymisation, these records are fundamentally personal ones and, as such, the removal of all personal information would rob them of their true meaning. The possibility of error is real and the accidental release of information could cause real trauma again.

Issues with the consultation were raised. Copies of the Bill were sent to groups. At all times, officials and I were available to engage. Officials are happy to meet survivors of abuse at any time, even between now and Committee Stage. I take on board Deputy O'Reilly's comments about achieving consensus. We have to try to work hard on achieving consensus. These people have had to endure such suffering down the years and I do not want to add to that trauma through the words that we use in this House. I am conscious of my own words.

The Bill has been flagged for a number of years. There was pre-legislative scrutiny of it in 2015. Survivors provided their comments to the committee. It was a mixed response.

In many respects, Ireland is further advanced in terms of investigating child abuse and related redress schemes. Therefore, there is limited international experience on which to draw. Deputy Clare Daly stated that the period was "unprecedented". She referred to Australia. Australia's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse recently completed its work. It appears that its records will in due course be transferred into the custody of the National Archives of Australia and will not be open for access for 99 years. Regarding the Northern Ireland Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry, a restriction order was made prohibiting access to the inquiry's records for a period of 100 years, with some limited exceptions. I sat down with my colleague, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Zappone. She had difficulty with the period of 75 years as a continuum. As such, she suggested a review after 25 years. I will be happy on Committee Stage to build that review period into the legislation. Whoever is in government in 25 years' time will have a decision to make.

The Government of the day may decide to look at this in a different way. That review at 25 years is being built in as a response to the 75 years in the legislation and it does exactly what it says on the tin. It not only feels like a long time, it is a long time and does give the appearance - the optics - that there is something to hide here. There is nothing to hide. We, as a country, over the past 15 or 20 years have started to open our dark past and we must continue to talk about and articulate that. We must ensure the next generation knows about our dark past.

It is regrettable that child abuse may occur in a variety of situations and, notwithstanding the demise of the industrial schools and reformatories, it is vital that we have a strong and robust child protection system in place. Deputy Burton made the point that we cannot sit back on our laurels and think it is okay today, it was bad in the past and it will be okay tomorrow. That is not the case. There are 3,700 children in emergency accommodation. We still grapple with these issues today in a way that leaders grappled with issues in the past through their different constraints.

The child protection guidelines which were first introduced in 1991-92 have been progressively strengthened, specifically in relation to child protection arrangements in schools. The Department of Education and Skills issued guidelines to schools in three phases - 1991-92, 2001-04 and again in 2011. The Department's procedures for responding to child protection concerns that are brought to the attention of staff employed by the Department were updated in February 2016, having been first issued in 1995 and revised in 2007. Garda vetting is now on a statutory basis with the commencement of the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Acts 2012 to 2016 and the application for the new vetting procedures in the educational sector has been expressly provided for in the Teaching Council Acts. The Children First Act 2015 was signed into law on 19 November 2015. All remaining provisions of the Children First Act commenced on 11 December 2017.

As part of my Department's ongoing work to improve child protection measures across the education sector, the inspectorate introduced child protection and safeguarding inspections in February 2019 as a new form of specialised child protection inspection. The child protection and safeguarding inspections enable the inspectorate to promote best practice in the implementation of child protection arrangements in schools, monitor the implementation of the child protection procedures for primary and post-primary schools 2017 in a sample of primary and post-primary schools annually and publish written reports on the implementation of child protection procedures for primary and post-primary schools 2017 in the sample of schools inspected.

The story of our residential institutions and the abuse which took place within them is a vitally important part of the history of our nation. This story has been captured in the Ryan report which will stand as a testament to that abuse and the suffering that children endured. I re-emphasise that Mr. Justice Sean Ryan did not call for the records to be released. It is critical that as much of that history as possible is preserved intact. In line with the spirit of the previous motion of Dáil Éireann, this requires that the records of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse and the Residential Institutions Redress Board and its confidential committee be retained and not destroyed, as originally envisaged. At the same time, it is incumbent on us to have due regard to the highly sensitive and personal nature of these records and the consequent risks and impacts which would be incurred and felt if they were released in the short term. As I have said, the Retention of Records Bill strikes a carefully considered balance between these competing imperatives and I commend it to the House.

The House must get this right. It does a further injustice if it does not. If there is something that I or the officials are missing, we are open to it. Deputy Thomas Byrne set the tone tonight by saying that if there are things we can do here to do justice to the people who were served a grave injustice, we must be big, brave and open enough to do that. I am willing to do work that needs to be done between now and Committee Stage if there is something we can do. However, the competing parts here are very difficult. The built-in 25-year review takes away from the length of the 75 years and the optics that something might be hidden here. Nothing is being hidden. We need to fully embrace our past. People on all sides of this House, for example, are talking about reviewing history: this is part of our history and it is why it is so important to have this information and topic on the desks of our students for the next generation because I will not allow this to be swept under the carpet.

See this speech in context