Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I am aware of the real rawness of the issues that we are discussing for the survivors of mother and baby homes. I am also aware that this debate, particularly over the past two weeks, has exacerbated that rawness. That does not sit easily with me.

I am bringing forward a Bill today whose purpose is to protect a database created by the commission on mother and baby homes. The commission and I believe this database will be of significant benefit to the many mothers and children who were separated by the process of the mother and baby homes. We had a lengthy eight-hour debate in the Seanad last week in which Senators raised many of the points we heard last night and other points. In response to that debate, I am bringing forward two amendments addressing the significant issues raised by Senators from parties represented here and Independent groupings.

In response to what was said in the Dáil, as well as through engagement with Deputies, Senators and academics over the past two weeks, I propose two political processes to address some of the issues set out in the amendments. I was upfront when I said I could not accept them as amendments but I would seek to resolve issues through initiating a process. That is a commitment that I will speak to again in the course of the debate today.

I have been criticised for not listening and for what I said about amendments. I am bringing forward two amendments solely on the basis of what I have heard in the context of this debate. I am also bringing forward a number of political solutions to other issues in this debate. I must make the point, however, that this Bill does not seal the archive of the mother and baby homes. That claim has been repeated countless times in this House. It is incorrect. This Bill seeks to protect a database and ensure it is not sealed in that archive.

The law on the archive being sealed comes from the original Commissions of Investigation Act 2004. When the commission on mother and baby homes was established in 2015 by the Oireachtas, it used the 2004 law as its basis and the consequence of that was the application of the 30-year archive rule. Accordingly, when the commission on mother and baby homes brings forth its final report and stands dissolved in law, its archive will be transferred to my Department and will be sealed for 30 years under the legislation.

In the House yesterday, I acknowledged the real problems created by that 30-year seal, in particular the real issue as regards access to personal and incredibly pertinent information. I brought forward this legislation because it will take the database out of the archive and give it to Tusla. That database is immediately available for use in the future, which will be incredibly beneficial. That is the sole purpose of what I am trying to achieve with this legislation.

My amendments Nos. 3, 5, 25, 26 and 63 will ensure that a copy of the database of the mother and baby homes and the related records will remain in the archive, as well as being transferred to Tusla. Under the original Bill, the database and the records supporting it were to be taken out of the archive and transferred to Tusla. Many Senators, Deputies and others have flagged that as a problem. They wanted to ensure that an entire copy of the archive was always kept together. Responding to that, we are bringing forward amendment No. 26 which will ensure the entire archive is kept together. A copy of the database will be made and left in the archive. The original of the database will transfer to Tusla and be used. I have listened carefully to the arguments for this from Deputies and Senators. I am acting to achieve that particular goal.

Several Deputies have suggested Tusla is not the right repository for the database if it is taken out of the archive. When the commission on mother and baby homes was established, it copied the records of a wide range of bodies relevant to its investigations. Tusla at that stage held the records for 15 of the 18 mother and baby homes being investigated. There were no records for three of them or they could not be found. Tusla had the original records for 15 of them. The commission took scanned copies of all of those records. The originals remain with Tusla. The commission took records from some other bodies too, such as PACT, the Protestant Adoption Society, and the Regina Coeli Hostel. These were other bodies that had records relating to certain mother and baby homes and county homes. The copies of those records were used by the commission to create this database. It was able to trace the names and dates upon which women entered the various mother and baby homes and use that to link to children exiting those mother and baby homes, primarily through the various adoption processes, some of which we know were extremely questionable.

For all those records that were copied by the commission to further its investigation over five years, we now have a database linking mothers and their children. That is an electronic database that exists.

Under the current Commissions of Investigation Act, when the commission reports, it stands dissolved and its entire work archive is sealed for 30 years. The commission in the sixth interim report, of which I will speak later, informed the Government about how it recognised the value of the database and it expressed concern that under the legislation, the database would have to go into its archive, becoming inaccessible. It is the taking of this database out of the archive to ensure it can be used that we are bringing forward with this legislation.

My Department made the decision that the database would rest with Tusla in the interim. We believe the database and the supporting records should rest with Tusla primarily because under the current legislation, the Adoption Act 2010, Tusla has the responsibility for tracing in Ireland. It is an inadequate system and there has been much criticism of Tusla for how it has engaged with survivors seeking information. I cannot speak to every case but in many cases Tusla was simply unable to give survivors what they needed because the legislation in Ireland is so inadequate.

Deputy Sherlock spoke earlier about information and tracing legislation and the fact we do not have information and tracing legislation in tandem with this Bill. I would love to have it but Deputies know how long it took for information and tracing legislation to get to Report Stage in the previous Seanad; the then-Minister, former Deputy Zappone, withdrew the legislation at that point.

Last week I committed in the Seanad to seeking to bring information and tracing legislation forward next year. It is important that I am as realistic as possible with timelines as too often expectations are raised and dashed. A significant amount of work has been done on information and tracing to get us where we got to in the previous Oireachtas and the work has continued in my Department since to bring forward meaningful information and tracing legislation. I do not need to tell Deputies that the process will be difficult and hard calls will need to be made on the legislation. The debate here has demonstrated to all of us the absolute importance of giving information to the survivors of these homes.

I have digressed a little. We have existing tracing legislation in the country with the Adoption Act 2010 and Tusla has been given the role of tracing adopted children under the Act. Tusla has very extensive files of mother and baby homes, as I alluded to. The commission took copies of the files and the originals remain with Tusla. As it currently stands and without the database, when somebody comes to Tusla to seek tracing services, Tusla must assign a social worker and go through the original files.

If we give this database and the supporting records to Tusla, it will be able to use that database to assist existing tracing services for anybody seeking information about one of the mother and baby homes from which Tusla holds the original records. It would be able to use the database to fulfil its existing tracing functions. Having the database will make the process much easier. That is the prime reason we believe Tusla is the right place for this; there would be an immediate benefit to Tusla holding this database with respect to its existing tracing services, limited as they are.

The database comprises records primarily originating in Tusla but there are also records from other institutions and bodies. Tusla will have a GDPR responsibility over the entire database and all the records, which is important. All the database and related records for that database which have been transferred to Tusla will be covered by GDPR, which is significant.

I spoke to the issue of capacity yesterday. Tusla has approximately 60 staff dedicated solely to tracing. I have heard what Deputies have said about inadequacy in this work and the individual circumstances where the service has not been right. As the line Minister with responsibility for Tusla I ask that where Deputies come across individual cases like this, they should bring them to my attention and I will seek to address them. The Adoption Authority of Ireland, which is a fantastic body, has 29 employees in total. Tusla has 60 dedicated to tracing and the adoption authority has 29 in total. Again, we believe Tusla is the best place to achieve value from the database in the interim.

All that being said, we are speaking about an interim resting place for the database. In the context of the information and tracing legislation I will bring forward next year, a discussion and decision must come about on what body will in the long term engage and undertake information and tracing in this country. I hear the very real concerns about Tusla doing this and I do not have the answer on who will undertake information and tracing in the long term but it will be answered in future information and tracing legislation. For the reasons I have outlined to Deputies, the interim solution is for the database and related records to go to Tusla, which would be able to fulfil its existing statutory functions on tracing with the records originally in its custody and where Tusla has the GDPR responsibility for all the records transferred. That even applies to the copies of the records that did not originate with Tusla.

There is also the question of the sixth interim report, which was submitted by the commission to the then-Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, former Deputy Zappone, on 14 February this year. In the interim report, the commission sought another extension of its work. As with all requests for extensions of its work done through interim reports, this was brought to the Government. In the request, significant legal and practical issues were raised relevant to the completion of the commission's programme of work at the time. It is those issues around the database that this Bill seeks to address.

Subsequent to the report there was extensive engagement between the commission and the Office of the Attorney General on the matters raised. The report did not include any findings by the commission on the substantive matters it examined over the previous four and a half years. I will publish the sixth interim report when I publish the final report of the commission of investigation. At that stage it will be available for all Deputies to see.

I have outlined the reasons I cannot accept the amendments from Deputies relating to Tusla or the Adoption Authority of Ireland.

See this speech in context