Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 4, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: “(3) At the same time of deposition with the Agency, a copy of the database and related records shall be deposited with the Minister.”.

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 relate to the idea of the database as a useful tool and something the Minister has described as potentially important and valuable in terms of the work of Tusla. I raised this issue and did not get a satisfactory answer. Since this legislation sets out where the database might be deposited, I do not see anything that would preclude us from having the database also deposited, as I have mentioned, with the adoption authority which has a large number of files and would substantially benefit from being able to do work in the interim before there is information and tracing and in ensuring it deals appropriately with people's subject access requests where it to have a copy.

Similarly, it is vitally important that the Minister has a copy. These amendments speak first to the idea that a copy of the database and of the related records should be deposited with the Minister because, as my colleague, Senator Ruane, eloquently put it, this Bill primarily takes a full body of the work of the commission and splits it in two. There will be no unified set that may, for example, be treated in whatever complex way it needs to be treated in terms of ensuring a future unified set of documents. We may hope that in 30 years' time some pieces of them will come together again and be put back together by some historians but, effectively, there is a split in the material. There are the documents which are deposited with the Minister and then there is the set of documents of related and relevant records, not simply from Tusla but from many other bodies and public bodies which Tusla will have along with a database. Then, there is all of the record of the work of the commission, that is, the documents created for and by the commission which are with the Minister. There is a fundamental problem if we talk about it being ineffective or a concern. In terms of the long-term record keeping of this State, it is ineffective if there is not a situation where we know there is at least one place, be it accessible sooner, as I believe it should be, or if it is only accessible in 30 years. However, at least we would know there is one place with at least a copy of all records where the full picture is stored and where the full picture can be painted.

The Minister will receive subject access requests. I am aware those are the issues we will have to debate and he will have to look at how they will be dealt with. The database will also be extraordinarily important for the Minister with regard to those subject access requests. There is nothing that precludes a copy of the database. I say the database and relevant records because I firmly believe there should be somewhere in this State where all the story is together and told. I urge the Minister to do this not to undermine Tusla receiving, perhaps, even the originals or the copies but to ensure there would be a full copy.

The other issue is the database and the word "explicitly". I do not have an amendment saying just that the Minister would have the database. However, I raised a challenge to the point he made earlier. Will the Minister, perhaps, reassure me that he will have a copy of everything in one place?