Jillian van Turnhout (Independent) | Oireachtas source

She will. I thank the witnesses for all the work to get the legislation to this stage. It is difficult when we are on the eve of whenever the election will be. I had really hoped this measure could have gone through but at least the work members will do in these hearings should mean it will get an early start in the lifetime of the next Government. I have a few issues on which I seek to ascertain the underlying thinking. Obviously, this is an issue on which I have worked to a considerable extent, given that I worked with Senator Power on a Bill on this issue that has gone through all Stages in the Seanad. I believe we have gone further on the issue of the right to identity and while I understand the Department's concerns regarding the Constitution, I do not agree. I am sure this is a matter the joint committee will explore in its hearings but I do not agree with the consensus on the Constitution regarding the right to privacy.

It has not been fully tested in the courts. We, as legislators, must ensure we put into legislation what is right.

One issue I have is what will constitute a "compelling reason". I have found it difficult to understand what could be a compelling reason. Do the witnesses have an example of a compelling reason? I feel very strongly about it. I would start from the position that everybody has a right to identity. We have stigmatised adoption beyond belief, which is not the case in other jurisdictions such as the UK. We need to unpack the issue of the right to identity. While we are examining the historic situation, a child being adopted today still does not have the right to discover his or her identity when he or she turns 18. It is very wrong and shows how far we still have to go.

Wearing my hobby hat of researching family history, I can find most birth records if somebody has a name that is not very common or usual. If I have money, I can go to the General Register Office and get as many birth certificates as I want and turn up on as many doorsteps as I wish. Nobody wants adopted people to be forced to turn up on doorsteps and ask people if there is a chance they might be their parents, based only on birth dates. We want information and tracing in order to allow people to make contact. Nobody I have talked to who has the hunger for their identity wants to turn up on somebody's doorstep and embarrass them. They are looking to fill the empty gap they have, to be able to know who they are and where they came from. It is an issue we still have to explore.

I also want to know about the records that are held, the processes there will be, and how many records have been handed over so far. Do we know how many records have been handed over? When former Senator Martin McAleese was writing the report on the Magdalen laundries, the different charities gave him records, but he handed them back. How is the State collecting those records, especially records from outside the State? Many children went to the US. One of my greatest privileges during this term as a Senator was to meet Philomena Lee, whose child was sent to America for a "better life". This brings me to the issue of consent. We have over-interpreted what is meant by consent. Anybody who has read Philomena Lee's book or any of the forms will know that what mothers signed to was not consent. It was not consent when they gave up those children. While we have the idea that we are basing everything on the right to privacy, they never agreed to it. We must be very careful how we interpret consent.

I have a further issue, which I will explore in the Bill and which I tried to bring up under the Civil Registration Bill. It relates to the birth certificates we produce now. A parent of an adopted child can get a clean birth certificate which in no way identifies that the child is adopted. While it is a side issue to the Bill, it is very relevant to the issue and I will raise it. On the statutory declarations, Claire McGettrick from the Adoption Rights Alliance said, "‘It is important to separate the issues of information and tracing; adopted people are seeking a statutory right to information as opposed to a statutory right to a relationship with their natural mothers". This statutory right to information and tracing is what we are all seeking and what we want to experience in the Bill.

I commend the Department officials on coming forward on the Bill and trying to push it as far as they can. I hope, in the hearings, we will try to push it further. I have met so many people who are seeking their identities, including children who were given up for adoption and parents - mainly mothers but some fathers - who gave, or were forced to give up, their children for adoption, or whose children were given up for adoption unbeknown to them. The right to identity is very clearly with the young person and child and I will seek to ensure that we balance the rights. However, in balancing rights, we need to ensure we do not overinflate the right to privacy. While I am very respectful of people's privacy, a right to identity is central to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is what we will be working towards in the hearings.