Department of Education – conallofatharta

Majority of abuse survivors express concern over plan to seal records

A majority of abuse survivors have expressed concern over government plans to seal millions of child abuse records for 75 years.

That’s according to a study prepared for the Department of Education and Skills and based on a series of more than 30 consultations with over 100 survivors of abuse in residential institutions.

The controversial Retention of Records Bill 2019 will see records from the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Cica), the Residential Institutions Redress Board, and the Residential Institutions Redress Review Committee placed in the National Archives of Ireland (NAI) and sealed for a minimum of 75 years, in what has been labelled “a dangerous and unnecessary precedent”.

The study found most of the survivors who spoke to the independent facilitators leading the study had concerns about the legislation, with a smaller number expressing support for it.

“The planned legislation which will see records from the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse and the Residential Institutions Redress Board put into the National Archives of Ireland and sealed for over 75 years was seen by some as a violation of their rights to their own stories, by others as excessive, while a smaller number who spoke about it expressed relief,” said the report.

In June, the Irish Examiner revealed that just four survivors of child abuse responded to a 2015 Department of Education call for submissions on the legislation.

Documents released under Freedom of Information show that just four survivors contacted the department since 2015 expressing views on the legislation. Two were against the sealing of records, while a third felt the records should be permanently sealed. The opinions of the fourth survivor were redacted.

Former head of special projects at the NAI, Caitríona Crowe, has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the proposed legislation, saying the Government’s decision to “override the 1986 National Archives Act” sets “a dangerous and unnecessary precedent”.

The provisions of the National Archives Act have proved perfectly adequate, over more than 30 years, to protect privacy and deal with sensitive subject matter.

“There is no reasonable argument for setting them aside in the case of these particular records, which will be extraordinary sources for scholars in the years ahead. The department’s action opens the gate for future restricted access to any records the State may not wish citizens to see.”

In May, this paper also revealed that the NAI advised the department in April of last year that there was no need for the legislation.

It said that records from the Cica are already covered by the National Archives Act, and that the latter two bodies could be brought under its remit by simply adding them to the schedule of the act. This would mean the records would be open to inspection after 30 years, subject to some exemptions.

However, in response, Aongus Ó hAonghusa, assistant principal officer of the residential institutions redress unit at the Department of Education, stressed that the need to seal records for 75 years was “an essential component of the whole retention project” and that to “leave open even a remote possibility of release”, under the National Archives Act, “could jeopardise the strategy, by making it potentially more vulnerable to legal challenge”.

Call for abuse records to be anonymised, not sealed

Thousands of testimonies relating to child abuse in institutions and related records should be redacted and anonymised, instead of being sealed for 75 years.

That is according to the former head of special projects at the National Archives of Ireland, Catriona Crowe, who is one of the most vocal critics of the proposed Retention of Records Bill 2019.

The planned legislation will see records from the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, the Residential Institutions Redress Board, and Residential Institutions Redress Review Committee put in the National Archives of Ireland and sealed for a minimum of 75 years.

The Department of Education said consideration was given to “alternative approaches” to sealing the records, including anonymisation and redaction. However, this approach was ruled out over concerns that such a process “could rob them of part of their historical significance”.

Ms Crowe said anonymisation and redaction “in no way detracts from the historical significance of the records”, as information is not permanently removed.

“In the case of anonymisation, a database is made of the full information contained in the records, and a copy created with certain fields with personal identifying information removed,” she said.

“In the case of redaction, I was able to successfully redact the administrative files relating to children adopted in the US between 1948 and 1974, by photocopying pages with personal identifying information, Tipp-Exing out that information, re-photocopying the copy, and replacing that page on the file. The originals are stored elsewhere, pending their eventual reunion with their files. This process, tedious though it is, could give everyone access to the administrative files of the relevant bodies after 30 years, in accordance with the National Archives Act.”

The Department of Education has said the three bodies which come under the new legislation all operate on the basis of strict confidentiality and it is not the intention that their records would be retained. It also said the legal advice available to Government is that a lengthy sealing period is required to ensure the move to the retention of the records is legally sustainable.

Irish Council for Civil Liberties executive director Liam Herrick said there “is no justifiable reason for this legislation” and “concerns that allowing public access to archives violates privacy rights can be addressed by applying existing standards that regulate access.

Anonymising abuse records would involve “considerable expense” and “significant practical difficulties” – National Archives Advisory council told

Anonymising records and contacting institutional abuse survivors instead of sealing records for 75 years would involve “considerable expense” and “significant practical difficulties”.

That was the view of the Government in an April 2018 letter seeking the views of the National Archives Advisory Council (NAAC) on its controversial Retention of Records Bill.

The legislation will see records from the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, Residential Institutions Redress Board, and Residential Institutions Redress Review Committee placed in the National Archives and sealed for a minimum of 75 years.

In the letter to NAAC chairman Mr Justice John Hedig an, then education minister Richard Bruton outlined that the joint Oireachtas committee on education had made a number of recommendations as part of the scrutiny of the legislation.

The recommendations included:
That further consideration should be given to the extent to which a legitimate expectation of confidentiality can be reconciled with opening the records for public inspection;
The potential “chill effect” on the work of future bodies seeking disclosures from the public and offering guarantees of confidentiality;
Whether the records should be anonymised or, instead, that survivors be contacted to ascertain whether or not they wanted their confidential testimonies and information to be made public.

Mr Bruton said: “On the question of anonymising records or contacting survivors, the view taken at the time was that significant practical difficulties could arise in terms of contacting some 15, 000 former residents.

There could also be legal difficulty in writing to former residents as it could be seen as encroaching on their right to privacy.

“There would also be considerable expense in anonymising the records. It was considered that the question of whether particular records could or should be anonymised at the point of release in 75 years is one that was best left until that time and could, if required, be addressed by way of Ministerial regulations,” said the letter.

Mr Bruton said that it was because of concerns about “the potential interference with individual rights and the claims of legitimate expectation to absolute confidentiality” that the legislation would seal the records for 75 years “by which time it is expected that those who engaged with the redress bodies [will] be deceased”.

It was reported earlier this month that, in response, Mr Justice Hedigan advised Mr Bruton that, in relation to the period of time that the records should be sealed, “the Council felt consideration ought to be given to opting for a period of 100 years as this is generally regarded as a two-generation gap”.

The NAAC also stressed that there is “a very strong public interest” in not destroying the records “due to their historical value”.

Government told as far back as 2013 of possibility to seal child abuse records for longer than 30 years

An advisory council to the National Archives told the Government as far back as 2013 that it was possible to seal child abuse records for longer than 30 years.

The letter was sent by then chairman of the National Archives Advisory Council (NAAC) Mr Justice Peter Charleton to then education minister Ruairí Quinn in response to the Government’s plans for the retention of the records.

The controversial Retention of Records Bill is currently making its way through the Dáil.

It will see records from the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (CICA), Residential Institutions Redress Board, and Residential Institutions Redress Review Committee placed in the National Archives and sealed for a minimum of 75 years.

Mr Justice Charleton said that the NAAC shared the Government’s view that the records “should be preserved for historians into the future” and the “forward-looking attitude that prompts it”.

“Normally, archives are released after 30 years. Records such as these may, under legislation, be held for longer. It is only now, for instance, that records of the period 1930-1939 from the security branch of An Garda Síochána have been released for scrutiny.”

“Everyone involved is long dead. A similar timeframe might be envisaged here, or longer. That will be a matter for Ministerial decision,” said the letter.

In July of that year, Mr Quinn responded to Mr Justice Charleton informing him of the Government’s intention to bring forward the legislation to allow for the retention of the records of the three bodies “subject their being sealed for possibly 75 years”.

The Government wrote to the NAAC again last year and advised that anonymising records and contacting institutional abuse survivors instead of sealing records for 75 years would involve “considerable expense” and “significant practical difficulties”.

A study prepared for the Department of Education and Skills based on consultations with over 100 survivors of abuse in residential institutions and published last month revealed that the majority of those interviewed expressed concern about the plans to seal records.

In June, the Irish Examiner revealed that just four survivors of child abuse responded to a 2015 Department of Education call for submissions on the legislation.

Documents released under Freedom of Information show that just four survivors contacted the department since 2015 expressing views on the legislation.

Two were against the sealing of records, while a third felt the records should be permanently sealed. The opinions of the fourth survivor were redacted.

Former head of special projects at the National Archives of Ireland (NAI), Caitríona Crowe, is one of the most vocal critics of the proposed legislation, saying the Government’s decision to “override the 1986 National Archives Act” sets “a dangerous and unnecessary precedent”.

The provisions of the National Archives Act have proved perfectly adequate, over more than 30 years, to protect privacy and deal with sensitive subject matter.

In May, the Irish Examiner also revealed that the NAI advised the Department of Education in April of last year that there was no need for the legislation.

It said that records from the CICA are already covered by the National Archives Act, and that the latter two bodies could be brought under its remit by simply adding them to the schedule of the act. This would mean the records would be open to inspection after 30 years, subject to some exemptions.

Legislation to seal abuse records drafted so “all possible provisions” of the National Archives Act allowing public access would be disapplied

Legislation to seal millions of child abuse records for 75 years was drafted so “all possible provisions” of the National Archives Act, which allows the public or State bodies to access records, would be disapplied.

The Retention of Records Bill 2019 will see records from the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (CICA), the Residential Institutions Redress Board, and the Residential Institutions Redress Review Committee placed in the National Archives of Ireland and sealed for a minimum of 75 years, in what has been labelled “a dangerous and unnecessary precedent”.

Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that the National Archives of Ireland (NAI) advised the department, in April 2018, that there was no need for the legislation.

It said that records from the CICA are already covered by the National Archives Act, 1986, and that the latter two bodies could be brought under its remit by simply adding them to the schedule of the act.

This would mean the records would be open to inspection after 30 years, subject to some exemptions.

However, in response, Aongus Ó hAonghusa, assistant principal officer of the residential institutions redress unit, stressed that the need to seal records for 75 years was “an essential component of the whole retention project” and that to “leave open even a remote possibility of release”, under the National Archives Act, “could jeopardise the strategy, by making it potentially more vulnerable to legal challenge”.

In August, M Ó hAonghusa emailed the assistant principal at the Department of Culture, Heritage ,and the Gaeltacht, Fergal Curtin, to point out that any sections of the National Archives Act which could be used by a member of the public, or any State body, to access the records, would be disapplied with regard to the records.

“The bill is drafted in a way that all possible provisions of the 1986 act that might be used to gain access to a record, whether by this department, another State body, or a member of the public, are being proposed for disapplication,” he said.

“The director’s [of the National Archives] functions under section 4 of the 1986 act have not been disapplied in relation to the records, so the director will be the only person legally entitled to access the records.

“No physical sealing, as such, is envisaged, but presumably the NAI will have its own way of dealing with this.”

“The provisions of the National Archives Act have proved perfectly adequate, over more than 30 years, to protect privacy and deal with sensitive subject matter,” she said.

“There is no reasonable argument for setting them aside in the case of these particular records, which will be extraordinary sources for scholars in the years ahead.

“The department’s action opens the gate for future restricted access to any records the State may not wish citizens to see.”

Just four abuse survivors give views on records legislation since 2015

Just four survivors of child abuse responded to a 2015 Department of Education call for submissions on its controversial legislation seeking to seal child abuse records for a minimum of 75 years.

Documents released under Freedom of Information show that just four survivors contacted the department since 2015 expressing views on the legislation.

Two were against the sealing of records, while a third felt the records should be permanently sealed. The opinions of the fourth survivor were redacted.

In March 2015, one survivor emailed then education minister Jan O’Sullivan asking her “why the Irish Government think that destroying documents, statements, evidence and putting a freeze of up to 75 years on these documents is a good idea?”.

“What are the pros and cons for this Bill?” the survivor wrote. “I assume with open conversation with victims there [sic] thoughts would not be that this is in their best interests, so who’s [sic] best interests are at the heart of this Bill?

“Why does the Department of Education and Skills want to remove valuable documents and [put them] out of reach of the people of Ireland, controlled under new laws?”

That same month another survivor also emailed Ms O’Sullivan pointing out that submissions made to the Redress Board were made “on a condition of confidentiality”.

The survivor wrote: “Consequently, I believe, I have a legitimate expectation that any files that are held by the [Redress] board re my case are protected by law pursuant to that agreement, and that I have a legitimate expectation this information will never see the light of day. In other words, final closure.”

In March of this year, Tom Cronin — a survivor of the St Joseph’s industrial school in Cork and a former board member of Caranua from which he resigned in 2018 over its treatment of survivors — emailed assistant principal officer of the residential institutions redress unit, Aongus Ó hAonghusa, stating that a seal of 75 years was “much too long”.

Mr Cronin said the records should be in the public domain “for all sorts of reasons” and said “society has a right to know what was allowed to happen to these children in Ireland”.

“As a nation how are we going to learn anything if we lock away valuable and crucial information that could help future generations. In my opinion, 75 weeks would be too long,” he said.

The Department of Education confirmed the four emails represented the “sum total of the representations/submissions” in relation to the legislation between 2015 and 2019. Last month, the Irish Examiner revealed that the Department of Education drafted the Retention of Records Bill so that “all possible provisions” of the National Archives Act which might allow the public or State bodies to access records, would be disapplied.

Religious order did not want ‘eternal besmirching of names of good people’ by keeping abuse records

A religious order that accepted that children were abused in its care told the Minister for Education in 2015 that plans to retain child abuse records would lead to “eternal besmirching of the names of good people”.

Provincial of the Rosminians, Fr Joseph O’Reilly, wrote to then education minister Jan O’Sullivan in 2015 to express his shock at the Government’s plans to retain and seal records relating to child abuse in institutions for 75 years under the Retention of Records Bill.

The original legislation enacted for the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (CICA), the Residential Institutions Redress Board, and the Residential Institutions Redress Review Committee provided for their records to be destroyed when their work had been completed.

In the letter, released under Freedom of Information, Fr O’Reilly hit out at the planned legislation, saying that if records were retained and not destroyed, future generations would “naively take as truth” the submissions made by victims to the Redress Board and that this would damage the good names of individuals.

“Future generations will naively take as truth the submissions to the Redress Board and lead to the eternal besmirching of the names of good people. Injustice heaped upon injustice,” he said.

Fr O’Reilly said that those who were involved with the Redress Scheme “know well” that it was “purposely designed with a very low burden of proof to facilitate the State”.

“The motivation was as much to do with politics as with justice,” he said.

The Rosminian Provincial said the plan to retain records would damage the credibility of such schemes in the future.

“In a future scenario when the Government of the day is trying to encourage people to participate in a confidential institution with promises that ‘everything will be destroyed at the end’ or ‘everything is confidential’ concerned persons or institutions will have ample evidence of broken promises,” he said.

The Order, in both its submissions and in its evidence to the Ryan Commission, accepted that physical and sexual abuse had occurred in two of its industrial schools during the period under investigation — St Patrick’s, Upton in Cork and St Joseph’s, Ferryhouse in Tipperary. The Order was praised by the Commission for its refusal to take up an adversarial approach to the victims of abuse.

In another letter, Provincial of the Daughters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul Sr Goretti Butler wrote to the principal officer at the Redress Unit at the Department of Education expressing concerns that plans to retain rather than destroy records could result in “a serious injustice” as the burden of proof in relation to allegations was low.

“As the burden of proof in relation to allegations made in the course of the proceedings under the new Acts was low, a serious injustice may result by disclosures that will result from access to records as proposed under the draft Bill. Indeed, this was a matter that was addressed by the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Commission and was recognised as a “big issue”,” she said.

The recommendations included: