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

I want to recall what we are trying to do with regard to early life information. The definition provided on page 10 of the Bill sets out the various types of information relating to a relevant person's life from birth to 18 years that are eligible to be released under the legislation. It is not an exhaustive list but it provides clear and consistent guidance on the type of information that has to be released in all cases, which is what we are achieving with the Bill. It is an expansive definition. It covers many different types of information, including, among many other examples, any religious ceremony that may have taken place, whether a relevant person has had vaccinations, any record of a person's physical or emotional development and whether the mothers of persons stayed with them in an institution for any length of time.

I cannot accept the amendment because it proposes to delete the definition of early life information, which is a key definition that ensures essential personal histories are captured and released. The fact that the word "includes" precedes the list of types of information that may be on record makes it clear that it is an expansive and not a restrictive definition.

I cannot support amendment No. 27, which proposes to delete the reference to section 2(2). That is important because it looks at the reference to that subsection. The function of the reference in the section is to define the period of time during which the definitions of care information and early life information apply, and it is included for accuracy and precision in drafting. This amendment deletes the particular reference entirely, but it does not offer any substitute or alternative. That would have the consequence of extending the period until the relevant person is 18 years old, but that amendment would have no practical effect as there would be no records in relation to care information or early life information that would extend past that cut-off point, because once a person is adopted or the persons named as his or her parents in a false or incorrect registration assume the role of parents, there would no longer be any records held by public bodies because the person would no longer be with a public body but with his or her adoptive or non-adoptive parents.

I have spoken about this with the officials. We do not support this amendment in respect of the reference to section 2(2). I am advised that under grouping 11, amendment No. 102, seeks to delete section 2(2), and I have asked my officials to review the potential benefits to individuals of amending that particular section. In the context of amendment No. 102, we will look to see if there is something we can do to provide additional clarity. That is what I have been advised in respect of amendment No. 27.

To address the extensive list of points that have been raised in amendments Nos. 28 to 63, inclusive, we are not accepting the amendments because we believe all of these issues, bar a small number that I will speak to at the end, are already covered within the definitions that we have provided under this legislation, either under the definition of early life information or the definitions of birth, care and medical information. Amendments Nos. 45, 48, 50, 51, 54 and 56 to 59, inclusive, are explicitly provided for under early life. Amendments Nos. 41 and 47 are clearly covered under care information. Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 36, 37, 42 to 44, inclusive, and 61 are explicitly covered under our definition of birth information. Amendments Nos. 28 to 30, inclusive, are captured under the term "provided items". Amendments Nos. 52 to 55, inclusive, are provided for under both medical information and early life information. Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 are covered under both early life and care information. I believe all of the amendments as set out are unnecessary as they are already covered.

Amendments Nos. 34, 39, 40, 42 and 46 refer to the inclusion of information that is the personal data of a relevant person’s mother and is not therefore the personal data of the relevant person. We cannot support their inclusion in this legislation as that would provide for the release of another person’s data without that person's consent.