Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I listened very carefully to the Minister's introduction of his amendments and his response to what has been said by Deputies. It was very difficult to understand and follow his statement. To be frank, I think he had difficulty articulating his position and what he said was extraordinarily confusing. If he is not able to simplify his argument so that we in this House and those outside the House who are impacted by these issues can understand it, then we have a problem.

The Minister's amendment No. 39 sets out a new section 6, subsection (1) of which states:

Notwithstanding the Act of 2004, the Commission shall stand dissolved on 28 February 2021.

He has said that the purpose of this provision is to allow the commission to continue to operate so that it can contact all those who gave evidence to the confidential committee to ask whether they would like the commission to redact their personal data from its archive. If that is the case, I ask the Minister to delete section 6(2), as inserted by amendment No. 39, which states:

The Commission shall submit its final report to the Government no later than 30 October 2020.

If the commission is not to be dissolved until the end of February 2021, why is the Minister insisting that the archive be given over to him by 30 October?

I will repeat what has been said in the Dáil many times, not just by the Minister but also by the Taoiseach. The argument is that the commission has created a database of every person to have passed through the mother and baby homes and the legislation needs to pass by 30 October or that database will be destroyed. The Minister needs to explain what is meant by "destroyed". I asked him to do so last night and even gave him options that might be envisaged, including shredding, burning and self-destruction. We need an answer as to what is meant by the database being "destroyed". I am trying to offer the Minister a way out that would give everybody more time to deal with this issue. He says the issue is not about the sealing of the archive, because that comes under different legislation. It does not matter which legislation applies. The sealing of the archive has become the issue of concern for survivors and for the Deputies who oppose his Bill, albeit that it is a result of legislation enacted in 2004.

A possible way out for us all, as I have proposed, is for the Minister to delete section 6(2), as inserted by amendment No. 39, and thereby extend the deadline for the archive to be sealed until 28 February 2021. Within that time, a legal challenge might be brought against the Bill, if the Minister proceeds to push it through tonight. If that is the position he feels he has been boxed into, he could at least delete that particular subsection and give us time to react to what is, as Deputy Connolly outlined, a very bad piece of legislation. The Minister does not fully know what he is going to seal on 30 October. I know he does not know because he told me so the other day, unless he has been since more fully informed. He knows most of what will be sealed but not all of it. Apart from the agony this causes for the survivors and those concerned with them, there is also the question of losing access to very important historical documents relating to certain institutions and to the conduct of the State and its institutions. The Minister does not know about those documents, which means that nobody knows about them. He has no right to push ahead with sealing the archive until he can fully inform us of every piece of material that will go into it.

See this speech in context