Ms Susan Lohan:

There were definite flaws with that, which we highlighted, particularly the two key stakeholder groups, the Natural Parents Network and Adoption Ireland, representing adopted people. It was a passive register. That meant that someone seeking information on their adoption registered on the NACPR and sat there until a matching person registered their interest in finding them. That would be a key difference, but it might be an issue around data protection, if a person signs up for one type of register and it changes. However, the vast majority of people who signed up for the NACPR thought it was an active register and we get many complaints from adopted people saying they have been on that register for ten years and not heard a dicky bird. There would be huge public impetus to move their registrations from the NACPR to this new register. I agree with various points people have made, saying that we should not necessarily throw the baby out with the bathwater. If the Adoption Authority has expertise it can bring to the table on this, it should be allowed continue with that.

On the question of compelling reasons, I agree with Senator van Turnhout that distress should not be a sufficient reason, because, as we highlighted in our submission, I could see situations with vulnerable natural mothers, particularly those who may have been incarcerated by family members in mother and baby homes, where those same relatives would encourage them to register that compelling reason and it could be widely abused. I should also point out to Deputies and Senators that compelling reasons, incredibly, will be used for future adoptions, so those people born next year, upon reaching their 18th birthday, who are adopted, will also be denied access to their identities and birth certificates by virtue of natural parents being able to file compelling reasons. That is wholly unacceptable and it is not visionary enough for those future cases.