Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have sat in my office for the past few hours listening very carefully to this debate. I listened to many powerful, moving insights and contributions. I read much of the text of the Seanad debate and the Bill itself. I read the amendments we will be discussing tomorrow. Like everyone else in this House, I have received thousands of heartbreaking and heart-rending emails from Irish men and women.

I was not a Member of this House when the commission of inquiry was established but I can safely say that it is unlikely that it was the intent of the Dáil that established it to bring us to the point we are at today. I do not have the legal context of those who sat in this Chamber when the commission was set up nor do I have the experience of some of my colleagues, but having listened to the debate, I can hear there is a genuine dispute over the legal implications of the proposed course of action. To me, it seems the Minister is saying his hands are tied and that he is basically precluded from any action other than what is in the Bill. I am not at all convinced that his hands are tied. Even if they are, he must untie them. He must find a way. Perhaps his colleagues and some of the Members on the Opposition benches to whom he has listened can help him to untie some of the knots.

The Minister must find a way to secure an extension so all of us in this House can in a calm, compassionate, humane and judicious way enact legislation that will fully preserve the database intact, ensure it is not sealed, and that there will be no chance of it being sealed for the next 30 years, and ensure privacy rights are balanced with proper access.

It has been already suggested by many colleagues that the Minister bring all of the party and group spokespersons on board to explore with the Attorney General by what mechanism we can delay the passage of this Bill. I know that the Minister has engaged with people on both sides of this House but that is not what I am asking of him. Rather, I am asking that at this stage he would take the step I have proposed.

The issue of pre-legislative scrutiny was raised which, of course, has not happened in respect of this legislation. As far as I am concerned, this legislation is beyond the Minister and beyond me and everybody in this House, but it is one of the most important items of legislation we will ever pass because of the impact it will have on the lives of so many people. If the Minister will not try to find, or cannot find, a mechanism to delay this Bill, will he accept the amendments that will prevent the possible disastrous outcome arising from the passage of this legislation as it now stands?

Members of this House are used to receiving hundreds or thousands of emails on different subjects but I have never in my time received such a volume of emails or witnessed before the level of anguish and desperation expressed in those emails. One would have to have a heart of stone not to respond and to not try to do everything in one's power to acknowledge the pain that reverberates in every line of those emails and then do something about it.

When the commission of investigation was set up it gave some real hope that this State and its people were finally facing up to the unspeakable horrors endured by so many young women and their children. We cannot snatch this hope from them at the last minute and lock it away with some or all of the information. The Minister is too young to have been part of complicit Ireland. Those of us who are older, including me, did not ask the questions. We accepted what was happening in front of our eyes. Some of the worst of it was hidden but the principles underpinning that system were there for all of us to see. We washed our hands and we walked away. We cannot make the same choices today or tomorrow. Just because something is legally complicated or legally difficult does not mean we can wring our hands and say we tried but there is nothing to be done. As I said, the Minister was not complicit but he is the Minister now. He has an historic opportunity to do what is right. In my opinion, which I know is shared by other colleagues here, the right thing is to engage with the Opposition in real, meaningful consultation to find a solution.

As I said earlier, we have heard some excellent contributions tonight. For example, we had a forensic analysis from Deputy Connolly, who traced this process back to the time when the awful truth began to emerge into the public domain. We have not heard any explanation as to why all the evidence received and all documents drawn up by the commission should not be lodged with the Minister. Why can this not happen? We have been given no clarification as to why the sixth interim report was not published. Furthermore, the Minister has not convinced us that the link to the 2004 Act will not mean for certain that this database is not sealed for 30 years.

I have little knowledge of the workings of Tusla but so many of those who have contacted me do not want it to be the repository for the database. I am sure there are many good people in Tusla, but at the heart of the concern is the institutional mindset of Tusla that has failed so many people. That is the real fear of many survivors. They have fought for their information and we cannot expect them to fight again.

It is my understanding from listening to the Minister that he will introduce further legislation to correct the deficiencies of the Bill we are discussing. I have no doubt that is his intention but, as we all know, unintended consequences can easily flow from legislation that we recognise is flawed or, at least, contains some flaws. I return to the question many people have asked. Why can we not find a mechanism now or in a short timeframe? The Minister stated that he will involve the Joint Committee on Children, Disability, Equality and Integration in the process, where citizens and others can give evidence. It is clear that this hurdle should have been well cleared before tonight.

The Minister's situation is a difficult one but whatever he does, he should not retraumatise those who suffered the unspeakable. Perhaps he might consider doing what very few Ministers before him have done and stand back and engage with the relevant people who just might help him to find solutions.

See this speech in context