For clarification purposes, perhaps my emphasis was misplaced. The statutory instrument particularly states the confidential committee shall produce a report of a general nature. All that should happen, and all that should result at the end of the confidential committee's work should be the general report and not a lot of documents or anything that would constitute evidence. My point is it will not get to the Minister to decide what is evidence as it should not exist in the first place if the commission is adhering…

Similarly records should not have been arising in that instance. If we are adhering to what is here, there should only be a general report.

I have full confidence in Judge Murphy, having read all she has produced on previous commissions. I have full confidence in her integrity in ensuring the statutory instrument is completely adhered to. This is my main point. I observed at first hand the Gacaca courts in Rwanda, which was the manner of dealing with the necessity of putting on record the history and truth of people's experience following the genocide. A process is necessary here, as is doing something such as this at the end of it, following the publi…

This is about the database. The net point is the database. It is not about the bigger issue; it is about the database. There is a means of resolving it. I was not here in 2015. I had no say as we were not in this, as Senator McDowell eloquently said, but we should not.

I am not saying they are supporters of the Minister. I have not stated that. To delay the report is to also delay justice.

Yes, I have spoken to survivors.

I am happy to agree

The Bill is about the database. It is not about the bigger issue. It is a net point of the database.

I have already expressed my reservations about how Tusla is handling the data. Some of the emails - I have subsequently spoken to some of the people who sent them - have been quite appalling in detailing a lack of sensitivity and Tusla's absoluteness about how it handles the data. I support section 2 and oppose the amendment on the basis of the Minister's stated intention to advance a more suitable body to deal with tracing and to assist in the future. My query is on a timeline for that.

I will be brief. I have sympathy with the position of Senator Higgins, which I appreciate, as she knows. We are of one mind on Tusla and the Data Protection Act. I think this is a belt-and-braces approach when, in actual fact, primary or secondary legislation, or anything that flows from the original Acts, should automatically be adhered to and be conditional on the proviso that the processing of records would not be lawful unless certain criteria are met. It is within the gift of the Minister to create legislation…

Within section 3, I see-----

I will speak to the amendment then. I thank you for your precision, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. The amendments relate to the application of data protection legislation. In this section, I see the Minister having the scope and the power to have further legislation that provides for many of the concerns he has taken on board in the process of this debate and with the Attorney General's advice. It has been said twice that this is technical and it is about the database. That has been quoted or said without the context of all…

I will not delay. I see this section as merely providing an extension to the agency, insofar as section 45 of the 2004 Act is operative. It just extends the requirement to Tusla as well as the Minister but it does not stop the transfer. I do not see that it has that consequence.

The Minister has referenced the index. I support an index. As he is receptive to that, I invite him to take on board these legitimate and supportive comments. With regard to the review, I 100% support what Senator Ruane is saying but I am opposed to the amendment. No matter how broad and thorough it is, it may inadvertently fetter the scope of a review. We need to look again. Our society has changed since 2004 and 2015. Covid-19 has changed how we think about everything, including domestic violence. It has changed …

I completely agree with the sentiment of the amendment. There are broader issues, however, and there are other Departments that need to have a say in this as well. It is a bigger matter than merely, with due respect, the Minister's own Department. Fettering the legislation with a time, albeit that it could be amended or extended, is unhelpful, perhaps, although I accept that the Minister has already said that he is planning on bringing this forward within the next year.

Now.

Now.

I thank the Minister and all the contributors to the debate. This has been a long and worthy day. On Wednesday, I expressed my confidence in the Minister to address the issues of tracing and disclosure. I know he will and I heard that today. This Bill was never going to address those wider issues. I believe the last word of the day should go to the people who are at the centre of this commission's inquiry, and in our final words we acknowledge their pain and suffering. We look forward to them arriving at a place wh…

I move: "That Second Stage be taken today."

I welcome the Minister. The Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation was established to provide a full account of what happened to women and children across named mother and baby homes and four county homes between 1922 and 1998. The personal experiences I have watched, heard and read about thus far were undoubtedly harrowing. At no point in our remarks in the House should we lose sight of the absolute suffering of women and children and their lifelong experience, their state of not knowing and the abuse a…