Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Sunderland for his opening statement. More importantly, I thank him for his submission. I am keen to contextualise this discussion of the balancing of rights. My mother gave birth to me in the Coombe Women's Hospital. From the moment I was born, or within a feasible administrative period, I had access to my birth certificate, which stated who my mother and father were. The objective of this legislation is to enable others to have a parity of entitlement to fundamental information about themselves.

While I agree a balance needs to be struck, the balance primarily in this legislation is the requirement of this information session or information meeting. The purpose of the information at that meeting is to impart that there is a no-contact preference, and that the privacy rights of the birth parents need to be respected. In this way, the State vindicates the right to privacy of the birth parents, while not in any way inhibiting the right to personal or identity information on the part of an individual. That is their fundamental right. I see this as being the balance is in the Bill.

In Mr. Sunderland’s submission, I am concerned to see him raise issues such as "sanction" and "safeguards" in that context. I am concerned that this meeting will not send out the message that a sanction will be considered anywhere. People do not need to engage GDPR in many respects to track down parents. The point of this is to have access to information. Mr. Sunderland said that perhaps the contact preference meeting should include all those who have not indicated a contact preference. I am a little concerned about that as well because it suggests that we reverse the onus. If we were to pursue that line, instead of having an obligation to register for no contact, it would become an obligation to register for contact. At the moment, there is a presumption that if someone has not registered a no contact preference, then contact is fine whereas, if we were to move with Mr. Sunderland has put forward, that would reverse that onus. I am not sure that balances the fundamental right to information about who someone is as an individual. I am, therefore, concerned about that. I would appreciate Mr. Sunderland’s comment. I would like him to bear in mind that I would like this to be a conversation and not a challenge. These were the issues that jumped out to me, as well as many others.