Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

It is important to remember that the central purpose of the information meeting is to ensure that the constitutional privacy rights of a parent or a mother who indicated a no-contact preference are respected. It only applies to that group who have clearly indicated a no-contact preference. The purpose of the meeting is to ensure that the no-contact preference is respectfully conveyed to the adopted person. That is the central role of this meeting. That is necessary to ensure that if this legislation were to be challenged or referred to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court could look at it and determine that the Oireachtas - because it is not just a Government decision, it is an Oireachtas decision because we all pass this legislation - looked at the right to identity information and the right to privacy. The Supreme Court would be able to see that although we prioritised the right to identity information, privacy concerns were also considered.

The Senator asked about alternatives. In the context of alternatives, we look at what was suggested in previous legislation. In previous legislation, an adopted person was asked to sign an undertaking that he or she would never contact his or mother. In the Bill that was drafted in 1999 and 2000, there was talk of a criminal prohibition of contact, which is obviously an incredibly draconian approach to take in respect of adopted people. More recent legislation included the possibility of a lengthy adversarial system whereby the mother would go before the District Court or Circuit Court and state why she did not want her name given and the adopted person, in a separate sitting, would provide his or her information. It involved an incredibly adversarial approach. Those are some of the other options that were floated in the past. They were proposed and included in draft legislation that was debated in the Houses. I do not believe, and I do not think anyone believes, that they are a good way forward.

The current legislation provides for a meeting, at the end of which there will always be the conveyance of the full and unredacted information. That is the key point, because some of those other processes that I mentioned could, in certain circumstances, result in the adopted person not getting the information at the end of the process. Under this legislation, the adopted person will always get access to the full and unredacted information. Do I have more time?