Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wish to speak in support of the amendment. Before I do so I wish, with the Ceann Comhairle's latitude, to mention an amendment I submitted and which, due to a mix-up between him and the Bills Office, has not been accepted. It would have been in order, and this signifies and shows how the Bill has been rushed through. These processes are there as a way to allow people to have an input into the legislative process. The processes have been short-circuited. My amendment was to the Minister's amendment. There is an additional timeline to allow for such amendments to amendments to be processed. In the normal course of events, that would have happened. I say this because the Minister held a briefing with Opposition spokespersons on 9 September to signal that this Bill was coming forward, but at that meeting I do not think he signalled it would come forward two days before the Dáil's rising and the thing itself happening. Between 9 September and today is six or seven weeks, so this Bill could have come through in time for discussion and debate taking place on it, and that is vitally important. The process has been hampered by the way in which this has been handled. That needs to be put on record, and I wish to do so because I believe, probably naively, that the amendment I had tabled would have provided a way out for the Government in this situation. That amendment is not on the record now anyway so it will not be taken.

As for amendment No. 1 and Tusla and its involvement in the retention of the records in this situation, it is shocking to hear the antipathy of people who have gone through the system for Tusla and its ability to deal with the information. The fact is that they do not feel they would get a fair hearing from Tusla. It is a sad reflection on the State that it should continue this hurt that has been done to these people over many years and that this will be continued in how this Bill operates. They say:

TUSLA operates legally troubling and discriminatory practices, including defining adopted people's birth names as 'third party data' and undertaking 'risk assessments' of all adopted people who request their records.

The Bill ignores the views of the Collaborative Forum of Former Residents of Mother and Baby Homes, which was established specifically to advise the Government and repeatedly stated that TUSLA should have no further role in adoption information and tracing.

Their organisations have said this should not have happened, yet this Bill comes through and proposes to do just that and the Minister will blindly go ahead and push this through today. I cannot add to what Deputy Connolly said because she has outlined perfectly the concerns about this, but it is important we put on record our feelings as Members about this as well. It is very wrong, and the Minister should be rowing back on this, stopping it and telling his Department to take a running jump.

See this speech in context