Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

It is confusing that the Minister's opening statement referenced unrestricted access for people to exercise their rights under GDPR, yet in his first response he talked about how this Bill sets out to restrict that access under GDPR. There are so many points to get to.

The Minister claims the Bill enables full and unredacted release of birth certificates, along with birth, early life care and medical information, but numerous witnesses have pointed out the significant restrictions in the legislation. First, the Bill contains a list of excluded information, which includes care provided by a parent or guardian to the adoptive parent or to the child. In addition, under head 2, the only information permitted regarding relatives is whether a person has a relative, his or her sex and whether they are younger or older. The use and definition of early life information is another very clear restrictive measure; it is vaguely and narrowly defined as the period following a person's birth. People have made it very clear that information before their birth on their parents could be very relevant. Why are those limitations in the Bill? Collectively, those parts of the Bill are intentionally restrictive and can by no measure be deemed full access to information.

There are other exclusions that will affect natural mothers and relatives. Numerous provisions absent from the Bill that have been identified by witnesses include no provision for mothers to access their information, including mixed personal data, about what happened to their child, and no means for relatives of the deceased to access information. The rights of siblings to information about one another are also ignored. Will the Minister address those glaring deficiencies?

The Minister stated that it could be deemed unconstitutional if the information session was not there. The compulsory information session was highlighted as a serious issue by so many witnesses. Groups pointed out that it is condescending, paternalistic and many other things. The Minister claimed it is a fair and compassionate way to communicate with an applicant but he is now saying the Bill is unconstitutional without it. What is the basis of that assertion? Again, was that information provided by the Attorney General and can he make it available to the committee?