Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

In response to Senator Boylan, I have not seen that report or what it has commented on, so I am not in a position to comment on it. I have been here with the Senators for the past period of time.

Senator Bacik made the point that we are putting a delay in this Bill and the consequence and asked why not delay originally. Since coming to the Department my sense was that, for legitimate reasons outlined by the commission of investigation in its interim reports, this report had been delayed for too long and my goal was to ensure that the final report could be published. It was suggested in the Lower House that perhaps I had asked the commission. It is a statutorily independent commission and I do not know if it would be appropriate for me to ask it to take longer, particularly when it indicated it was ready to report on 30 October. The delay we provided for can only take place if this legislation is passed. The sole purpose of that delay is to allow engagement between the commission and those who attended before the confidential committee on the basis of the personal stories they told.

That ties into the question asked by Senator Seery Kearney as to whether this impacts on the final report. It does not. First, there are no names of the people who gave personal stories to the confidential committee in the final report. Second, the redaction, where that is chosen, only takes place in the context of what goes into the archive. The final report can be given and the relevant redactions can take place, where necessary.

Senator Keogan asked about when a person has been deceased. We engaged with the Attorney General on this point. The decision was made that the approach taken would be to opt into redaction, rather than opt out of it. That was taken on the basis of the understood status quoof the 2004 Act and the terms of reference of the commission of inquiry. Where somebody is deceased, it will not be possible to redact the person's name from the person's testimony. Again, that was a decision based on the best approach. We have discussed whether opt in or opt out was better, but that was the determination in light of advice from the Attorney General.

As regards the potential reference to third parties in somebody's personal story to the confidential committee, and this is a response to what both Senators Mullen and Seery Kearney said, it is worth remembering that personal stories were not sworn testimony, whereas when the person appeared before the commission it was sworn testimony. The Department engaged with the commission on that and it said, in accordance with its rules and obligations, the personal stories do not contain the names of third parties where criminal allegations were made. If in the course of an engagement between an individual and the members of the confidential committee any allegations came up, at that point they were notified immediately to the Garda. It is a little like what the Senator said in the context of counselling. The engagement with authorities took place at that point. I understand the commission has fulfilled its terms of reference and rules of action as regards where an issue of criminality came up in the context of a discussion in front of the confidential committee, and it was referred on. Obviously, if something happened before the commission that was sworn testimony, the commission was in a position to summon the other person. That will be referenced within the report.

Regarding GDPR and the contributions of Senators Doherty and Higgins, my Department will hold the entire archive from 28 February. I have been working on the basis of advice from the Attorney General regarding the restriction that was placed on us by section 39. I have undertaken enhanced engagement with the Attorney General on that, because I do not wish to be in a position where we are offering blanket refusals. I do not want to do that. We have engaged with the Data Protection Commissioner in the context of the impact assessment. We circulated that to Senators earlier in this process. I do not have the full answer to how we will address it today, but I have set out the process and I am determined because I believe many of the issues relating to access to personal data, in particular, could be resolvable in the context of GDPR.

Senator Ruane asked me a question which I noted but I cannot find it.