Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for being in the Seanad today. I thank the many survivors and their advocates and allies who have contacted me and other Members this week on this Bill. I have not had a chance to go through the more than 4,000 emails I have received since Monday but I and others have heard the concerns being expressed loud and clear.

There has been a strong reaction for a reason. We are legislating in an extraordinarily sensitive area where we are beginning the process of trying to come to terms, as a society, State and Parliament, with the incomprehensible horrors of what occurred in mother and baby homes across this country in our all-too-recent past. The importance of the kind of records we are discussing cannot be understated in helping us to understand, memorialise and reconcile with that shameful part of our history.These records will play a crucial role in the national process we are engaged in to build narratives based on historical and intergenerational justice and that appropriately and sensitively memorialise the women and children who were resident and lost their lives in these homes. What happened to them in homes such as that in Tuam cannot be forgotten or swept under the rug; it must be remembered in all its shameful detail to honour their memories and the experiences of the survivors and their descendants. As a result, how we manage these records, as well as how we manage access to them and whom we give responsibility to for holding them for safekeeping, are vital. This goes to the heart of the legislation.

To respond to Senator McDowell's comments on privacy, we have learned from the likes of the Retention of Records Bill 2019 and other legislation that survivors are not a blanket group. Moreover, there was not, as I understand, an option to waive anonymity. Anonymity was assumed and people were not given an option to waive it.

I turn to the process used to progress the Bill through the Seanad. Forcing a Bill through the House in the space of a week, on a sensitive subject such as this, has provoked significant and justified reaction. The Bill will not move through the House in a vacuum or without the context of what has gone before us. As the Minister will be aware, legislation on adoption, information and tracing came before the previous Seanad and, unfortunately, stigmatised and belittled adopted people. It is clear the damage done by that Bill is still raw, as we have seen reflected in the strength of the reaction this week. Taking an additional week to allow for additional debate in the House would have allowed for more consultation with survivors. This has, unfortunately, been a central complaint about how the Bill has progressed. Being seen to move too quickly, or without due scrutiny of legislation of this kind, damages our credibility with the public and, in particular, with the survivors affected.

As for the Bill itself, our concerns will be familiar to the Minister. Any pronouncement about a 30-year sealing of records will always be a cause of concern, especially when it comes so soon after the intense debate on, and the eventual withdrawal of, the Retention of Records Bill 2019. We need to listen to survivors when they tell us they want to access their personal information and testimony, something we should be able to guarantee them. Where appropriate and sensitive memorialisation is the aim, efforts should be made to anonymise records for their inclusion in crucial historical projects, such as for the proposed archive to be built on the site of the Magdalen laundries in Seán MacDermott Street. We are concerned this will not be possible under the Bill.

There are also concerns about the legislation in regard to the general data protection regulation, GDPR, and particularly about how data subject access requests are currently being denied by Tusla on spurious grounds relating to the conduct of future commissions. How can a survivor being able to access his or her personal records harm the conduct of a future investigation? Our central concern is that Tusla will be given control of these records, despite its track record and its highly conservative interpretations of what should be released under GDPR. There are also concerns about how appropriate the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 is for sensitive investigations such as these. In 2017, during statements in this House on the setting up of the commission, many of us all called for it to sit in public, a request that was ignored.

These are just some concerns. We will discuss them in further detail on Committee Stage, when we will table amendments. I reiterate the importance of moving and legislating sensitively and respectfully on these issues. All of us here will play a crucial role in deciding how this shameful part of history will be remembered, and we must take the responsibility seriously.