Jillian van Turnhout (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Shannon. It is always a pleasure to listen to him. He has given us another masterclass and has made points I am sure will be repeated in both Houses as we debate this legislation.

It is very welcome to hear the right to identity being highlighted in the way Dr. Shannon has highlighted it. All too often we hear about the right to privacy as if it were a right that trumped all others. In his submission, Dr. Shannon has dealt very much with the balancing and delicate interplay of rights, and he has also reminded us about children. To our shame, a child being adopted today does not have a right to identity. While we can talk about the past, which we must address, we must also talk about the present.

There are three areas on which I would like to ask questions. The first concerns the capacity and resources of the authority. In considering the wide spectrum of records, it is not simply a matter of having a register going from A to B in which every entry can be put on file. Rather, it is a question of the nature and types of records, their wide variety of sources and how the information is to be collected.

While I understand the process, that all will take time and I am aware that many of those who have approached people like me and Senator Power are getting older. This is why time is not on our side on this issue.

The other issue I wish to raise concerns the legality of adoptions prior to the Adoption Act 1952 because the National Adoption Contact Preference Register only has data on a small number of adoptions. However, the authority audited those records in 2011 and found 50 cases of illegal adoptions. Is there a proposal to do further work in this regard? I raised the point, in the context of mother and baby homes, that this issue must be examined and scoped out. I have not got my head fully around how that might be done but the issue cannot be simply ignored because it is wrapped up in the issue of consent and what that is. Consent is not having a piece of paper shoved in front of one and being told to sign it. Some people may not even have signed anything and that does not constitute consent in any way. The last question I wish to ask is about the "compelling reasons" provision, which Dr. Shannon raised briefly. I cannot see why this provision is needed and have been trying to trawl, root and ascertain how does one ensure the bar is set so high. My difficulty is that by leaving in the phrase "compelling reasons", the question of what is a compelling reason is being left open to interpretation. In any example I have tried to provide, people have stated it would not be strong enough. However, this is what members are debating. Why is this being included in the legislation if nobody can give me a viable example? Perhaps Dr. Shannon can do so.