Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. Things are becoming a little clearer but I am no closer to accepting his arguments. The one welcome thing I have heard is that Tusla's role in this is an interim measure.

I wish to address the commission of investigation's sixth interim report. The Minister has confirmed that it raises significant issues around the disposal of records. He intends to publish that along with the commission's report after we pass the legislation. This is in spite of the fact that this legislation is based on the issues raised in the sixth interim report. The Minister will not say why he will not give it to us. I do not know if I am making a big deal out of nothing. There are seven reports, all of which I have read. The Minister refuses to give us the sixth even though this legislation is based on the issues it raises. More worryingly, we do not have sight of exchanges with the commission, which was set up to function independently, and with the Attorney General. We know nothing about these communications. I am asking the Minister to publish every single piece of documentation which passed between the Department, the Government and the commission since the sixth interim report, however that information is held. I ask him to give us the sixth interim report before the day is out so that we can inform ourselves on the need for this legislation.

People have spoken of the Minister's bona fides, which I accept. In recognition of that bona fides and the trust that Members have in him, I ask the Minister to tell us in plain and simple English why the sixth interim report cannot be published so that we can read it, understand it and see why it is necessary to pass this legislation in this manner.

Either the Minister is being absolutely disingenuous on the subject of the 30-year rule or his Department is. He says that this legislation has nothing to do with it, which is correct. However, it is disingenuous of the Minister to keep repeating it when he knows that the commission was set up on the basis of the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004. That Act refers to the National Archives Act 1986, which in turn provides for the 30-year rule. The onus is on the Minister to explain this. Surely, seven years after the very welcome apology from the then Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, the Minister should tell the House how he is going to get around the 30-year requirement.

Let me take a step back. The 2004 Act states in black and white that the commission must hand all of the documents, information and testimony over the Minister. The Minister tells us that he will be bound by the 30-year rule. Let us accept that for the sake of argument. The Minister and his Department then have a duty to tell us how they will change that because of the importance of this archive of information, which has been highlighted in every single report, including the interdepartmental record that led to the commission of investigation as well as the interim reports of the commission itself. I will return to the importance of the archive in a minute.

After five and a half years and seven interim reports, and in light of the issues raised in the sixth interim report, the Department has a duty to tell the House what legislation is necessary to circumvent the 30-year rule. If we have learned anything, it is the importance of learning from documentation. I am looking forward to seeing what the commission of investigation publishes. Perhaps that is not the right phrase. I am certainly not comfortable with it. That will outline the commission's view of the evidence it has heard and the documents it has read.

In addition to the report itself, we need to be able to see the documentation on which the commission bases its view. If it is not possible for me and other Deputies to read that documentation, it must be possible for researchers and academics to do so. It has to be accessible to survivors in the future. We need that. It is called "empowerment". It would mean giving power back to the people from whom we took it. Not only did we take their power from them, we blamed them. We called them all sorts of names. Now is our chance to do what is right. The Minister has come to the House with legislation which has now been amended.

I welcome the amendment tabled by the Minister which will mean that the whole block of information will be kept together under his remit. However, his original intention was to give some of the information to Tusla. He has explained today that he did that because he wished to enable Tusla to use the information for tracing and tracking. If he can get around the 30-year rule for that purpose, then there is an onus on him to explain how he is getting around it and taking some information out of the 30-year rule but not other information. I do not understand the logic there. To be clear, if there is no way around the 30-year rule and the Minister is obliged to comply with it, there was a duty on him to come into the House and set out how the legislation can be amended to allow for this. During a briefing on this issue, I attempted to ask that question, however inarticulately, and the Minister replied that so doing would undermine the whole basis on which the commission functioned. In other words, he claimed that people went forward to the commission on the basis that anything they stated to it would be sealed for 30 years. I do not believe that one single person who was in a mother and baby home or came forward on behalf of a family member who was in a mother and baby home went to the commission on the understanding that anything they said would be sealed for 30 years. I do not think that was the case. That begs the question as to whom the Minister is protecting - not him personally - when he speaks about having to seal the information except for the segment that has gone to Tusla. Whom is he protecting in that regard? Which witness or body is he protecting in insisting that?

Another aspect of the matter is whether the 30-year rule applies from the establishment of the commission onwards and to the documents used in the commission even though those documents go back 50, 60 or 70 years. Where does the 30-year rule apply? The mother and baby home in Galway closed in 1961. We are way beyond the 30-year rule. What index has been made of the documents for various years, not to mention the source and contents of the documents? What index has been made of the documents that are beyond the 30-year rule? No information whatever has been provided in that regard.

The Minister referred to Tusla having a capacity of 20. Tusla does not have enough social workers. There are children on a waiting list. Some therapists working for Tusla who have been sidelined to tracing and tracking in the context of Covid. I feel for the staff in Tusla. It has an appalling and mixed-up name that, as I have previously stated in the House, really reflects what the State did when it created Tusla under the 2013 Act which came into operation in 2014. I think the name is based on tús lá. I do not even know how to pronounce it. The Irish word "tús" means beginning and the word "lá" means day. I presume the name "Tusla" refers to the beginning of a new day, but the síneadh fada is gone and the meaning is gone. Maybe that indicates what was done to Tusla when it was set up. The Minister referred to the 2010 Act putting the obligation on Tusla, but it was not in existence in 2010. It only came into existence in 2014.

I do not mean to nitpick. I am not an expert on any of this. My strength comes from my personal involvement, the privileged life I have led and the privilege of having a voice. I would prefer to be having a cup of tea outside rather than having to go through all of this. It is emotionally and intellectually draining. Most of all, it is unacceptable. I stated yesterday and earlier today that the language used is patriarchal. Those who have been affected are being told that the State is using the information for their own good. It is taking this chunk of information and giving it to Tusla because so doing will help them to trace their parents or children. That is the approach that is being taken, rather than having an overall vision and learning.

I have no words to describe what the State did to mothers and children. It then heaped abuse on abuse after that. Now it is coming forward, 21 years after an apology was given, with legislation that is not fit for purpose. If I am to be honest, I do not think the amendments are great either, but they were tabled to try to amend a bad Bill, and it is a very bad Bill. I ask the Minister to take it away and then come back to the House and tell us what is the way out of the 30 October deadline when the data will turn into pumpkins, rot, disappear or self-destruct. The Minister has not addressed any of that.

He has extended the commission to February in order to allow for the implementation of a solution that was given by the Attorney General, which I do not agree with because people went forward in confidence regarding identifying marks, their names and so on. That is what is now being presumed. They are being given the option of stating that they do not wish to be anonymous but, rather, wish to have their names put to it. It should be the other way around. If the Minister can extend the life of the commission for that purpose, why can he not extend its life in order to avoid the self-destruct button on 30 October? Once again, it is as though the sword of Damocles is hanging over Deputies: if this is not done, a terrible thing will happen. Can the Minister imagine what that sounds like to people who have been through this system? They are told that if they do not do what the State tells them to do, this is what will happen. The State is going to give them a little carrot by taking a chunk of the information and giving it to Tusla, the very organisation these people do not trust, and ask it to assist with tracing.

Many Deputies, including me, begin long contributions by stating that they will be brief. I am doing my best to be as brief as I can. If the Minister can take out a chunk of the information and avoid the 30-year rule for it, that raises the question of why he cannot take out more of the information. If necessary, it can be given to Tusla - I do not wish for that to be done - in trust until we sort out the mess. Alternatively, another body could take it in trust and avoid the 30-year rule in the manner the Minister has done for the database and collected information.

I again call for the publication of the sixth interim report and an explanation as to why it alone of the seven reports has not been published. I ask the Minister to explain why he did not come into the House, after seven interim reports and five and a half years, to tell Deputies that there is a problem, the House needs to pass legislation and the matter needs to be discussed at the joint committee with the benefit of expert advice such that we could all work together.

It is important to mention Catherine Corliss and other people whom I will not name on the ground in Tuam. She worked meticulously off her own bat in Tuam from 2011 until 2013. She got the names of 796 babies and children buried somewhere on the site. We now know from one of the interim reports that some of those babies, infants and children are buried in what appear to be chambers used for sewage. She paid €4 for each death certificate and so on. I wish to mention her name and the background to where we are today. That is only one segment. I could go back further, but I will not do so.

I will quote the words of Terry Prone. Deputies are asked not to mention names in the House, but this is in context. She was speaking on behalf of the Sisters of Bon Secours when rumours started about burial chambers in sewage chambers. She stated on behalf of the Bon Secours sisters to a documentary maker: "If you come here you’ll find no mass grave, no evidence that children were ever so buried and a local police force casting their eyes to heaven and saying, ‘Yeah a few bones were found – but this was an area where famine victims were buried. So?’." I am not singling out the Bon Secours sisters. If we have learned anything here, it is that this involved local authorities, District Court judges, solicitors, health boards and the Department of Education. There was State control and State involvement. The county council owned the mother and baby home. I cannot think of a more inappropriate name for the home. It was owned by the county council and operated by the Bon Secours sisters.

5 o’clock

I will mention one final person, Peter Mulryan, who is a survivor. I do not think he will mind me mentioning his name because he has gone public many times. It is a few years since I used these notes. Mr. Mulryan has been to the High Court on eight separate occasions trying to get access to his records. That is the background.

I will conclude by speaking about the importance of archives. Dr. Caitríona Crowe, former head of special projects of the National Archives of Ireland, wrote in The Irish Times:

Why are archives important? Because they are evidence of events in the past that give us some certainty about what happened, if used intelligently and carefully. In the era of “fake news” and the supremacy of opinion over fact, archives are a bulwark against mischievous or uninformed attempts to rewrite history. We need to value, cherish and understand them.

In its report published in 2014, the interdepartmental group, which met before this commission was set up, noted:

... the Group’s examination of the extensive records which could contribute to greater public understanding of historic practices has necessarily been very modest given the scale of such records. The Group considers that a very important benefit of such an historical survey would be to provide an inventory and analysis of the archival and other sources, both public and private, of most relevance in researching these issues.

I could go on, but I will not. I know no amendments are being accepted. I find myself in the position of thinking they are not great, mine included, but we are doing our best with very bad legislation. The Department has been on notice for a long time. The Government and the two which preceded it knew that there were issues with how we were going deal with a collection of documents for the first time. It must be borne in mind that in the context of the Magdalen laundries, we had the McAleese report, the commission of investigation and Caranua. Every report highlighted the dispersal of documents and the difficulty in getting them. One of the interim reports referred to a congregation of sisters who swore an affidavit in respect of documents, which the commission found incredible - "incredible" is my word. The commission had difficulty believing an affidavit that the nuns swore and so on. We have known for a very long time.

Regarding the confidential briefing notes that Deputies got when discussing the mother and baby homes in recent years, in 2012 the intelligence unit in the Department of Health highlighted all these issues and the concerns regarding practices that the commission is investigating. The Minister has come to us with this Bill and has told us and the people listening that they are mixing up different things and that this is not about sealing documents away for 30 years. That is disingenuous and unacceptable. For as long as I have a voice, I will continue to say that.

For the last time, I appeal to the Minister to lead differently. We all came in to do things differently and not to repeat Department speak. I do not blame staff. I see how hard they work, but it is time to lead and it is our duty to lead. What is the solution to get the Minister out of this mess? This legislation is not the solution. How do we change the deadline that is, according to the Minister, looming over us? I do not accept that it is. How does the Minister, as a leader, get around that so that we can have satisfactory legislation? How can he stand here and tell us that the sixth report will be published after bad legislation is passed? The Minister should try to listen to us and reflect.

See this speech in context