Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

This is my first meeting as a member of the committee. I am conscious that other members have already been through some hearings on pre-legislative scrutiny. I welcome the opportunity to be here. I thank the Minister for his outline of the Bill. I was very involved in the Minister's predecessor's attempts, and indeed with other attempts in the past, to try to draft legislation. Unfortunately, it has always been a very tortuous process and as the Minister has outlined, we have ended up with very cumbersome mechanisms being put in place in an attempt to address this balancing of rights, as described. We were previously told that balancing would not be constitutional unless there was effectively a veto in favour of privacy over information. I am glad we have moved beyond that.

My first question is to ask why we still need a three-pronged mechanism to ensure that balancing. The Minister has described it as three elements: the temporal limitation of the age of 16, the counselling and support of which mothers and adopted persons may wish to avail, and the information session. Given there are three elements, we should look again at the information session under head 3 and head 7. I welcome the fact that it is now going to refer to the right of identity, which is currently absent and a real glaring omission under head 3 and head 7, but if it is to become a virtual interaction with no social worker present, then why not replace it with the information booklet that many of those who made submissions to us sought, and an optional offer of counselling or a meeting, as per head 4, for birth parents? It seems to me that would sufficiently address the constitutional concerns around balancing privacy and identity rights. As I have said, for far too long we have favoured privacy over information and identity. We are an outlier in terms of access with this sort of conditional access, as many human rights groups have described it to us, and would remain so, even with head 3 and head 7, albeit that they are a great improvement on what was proposed before.

I must say that the three-month period is a hugely positive option. We explored this before as a way of ensuring that people were aware of their rights. It has been done in respect of survivors of residential institutions. It could be a hugely positive way to address that awful closed and secretive system of adoption that has prevailed for far too long but I wonder why we are still preserving these very cumbersome mechanisms when something more straightforward could be put in place rather than this compulsory meeting. As Senator Seery Kearney stated, if you get notification about an information session, then you know there is a no-contact preference. In a way, that fulfils it. Why, then, proceed with the meeting?

I also ask that we see a timeframe for the supply of information in head 3 and head 7. It is currently lacking, unless perhaps I have missed it. We could include a phrase such as "as soon as practicable" or "as soon as possible". That would assist in balancing with the rights to identity and information and giving them the priority they deserve and require.

I would like to make three other brief points. The first concerns language, which is a complex issue. We have seen the submissions referring to the issues around the use of the phrase "birth mother". I am interested to note that the phrase "birth mother" is only used in the interpretation section. Elsewhere throughout the heads, the phrase "birth parent" is used. I wonder if the issue could be addressed in the interpretation section. Otherwise, the Bill is gender-neutral by referring to the "birth parent". I do not see the same objection to that phrase. I absolutely agree with the NUI Galway group, and it is great that the Minister is engaging with the group, because I think there are other areas where the language is problematic, particularly in the explanatory notes, where the phrase "birth mother" is used repeatedly, and under head 16 in explanatory notes, which refers to birth mothers giving up more than one child for adoption.

I will make two other quick points. I welcome the provisions on illegal birth registration but we need more on the right of appeal and the process of correcting the register. Finally, how will the Bill apply to children adopted to or from abroad? That question was raised in the submissions.