Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I note with interest the point made by Deputy Connolly about the creation of Tusla. It is a word that does not trip off the tongue easily. I do not even know if there is a statutory basis for the name "Tusla". I believe it is called the Child and Family Agency. We would all do ourselves a favour if we continue to refer to it as the Child and Family Agency. I do not know when the marketing people came in and decided to give it this glossy title. Perhaps this is something that should be reviewed and revised. I agree with the Deputy in that respect.

The Minister is again stating unambiguously that the Bill does not seal the mother and baby homes archive for 30 years. Do I understand that correctly? The Minister is nodding in the affirmative. Last night he said: "this Bill does not seal the mother and baby homes archive for 30 years." Later in that debate, he also said

The 2004 Act provides for the publication of the final report of a commission by the prescribed Minister and further provides that the archive of records will remain sealed tor a period of 30 years, after which time its availability for public inspection is governed in accordance with the National Archives Act 1986.

While I want to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt, these seem to be contradictory statements. While I do not mean this in any pejorative way, there may be a bit of wizardry going on with the words. While, technically speaking, the Bill before us may not seal the database or the records, the Minister has acknowledged that the 2004 Act on which all this hinges provides for the records to remain sealed. That is the point I cannot reconcile in my mind. That is the perception I have, and I am quoting the Minister's own words back to him. We wanted more time to deliberate on this so that we could go through this line by line, dissect the Minister's words and scrutinise the legislation adequately so that we could have a clear conscience collectively that we were passing legislation that would not be detrimental to the women, children, relatives and everybody directly affected by the legislation.

I ask the Minister to clarify for us his intention in respect of this in the simplest language. Our interpretation is that there is a definitive sealing of the records. The Minister made the point previously, in response to points I made on the information and tracing Bill. I acknowledge the Minister's words with regard to there being a process and that he hopes to bring the information and tracing Bill before us next year. The Minister will forgive me if I am somewhat sceptical about his ability to do that. I am not referring to his personal ability to do it. I do not doubt his bona fides in this respect. However, the information and tracing Bill stopped like a juggernaut and it has not started again, and I do not understand why. That needs explaining and further interrogation because it is germane to this Bill, not from the privacy or confidentiality aspects but from the point of view of seeking information and devising a process to facilitate people to seek the information they so deserve and that is theirs as of right.

I ask that the Minister please clarify the seeming contradictions in his Second Stage speech last night on the records' sealing. He stated:

The 2004 Act provides for the publication of the final report of a commission by the prescribed Minister and further provides that the archive of records will remain sealed tor a period of 30 years, after which time its availability for public inspection is governed in accordance with the National Archives Act 1986.

See this speech in context