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

I cannot support this set of amendments. They seek to alter or expand the definitions of "genetic relative" and "genetic relative information" contained in the Bill. These definitions were carefully considered in consultation with the Attorney General and the Data Protection Commissioner. The definition of genetic relative is central to information release in two key ways. First, it relates to the release of the medical information of a genetic relative where the information is necessary for the maintenance of a relevant person's health; and second, to the release of correspondence between a relevant body or secondary information source and the genetic relative of a relevant person. It also relates to information pertaining to any visit a genetic relative may have made to a relevant person under the definition of early life information.

Amendment No. 65 seeks to extend that definition of a genetic relative to include grandchildren. However, this is not relevant or necessary in any scenario where this definition applies. For example, a record will not hold the medical information of a relevant person's grandchild and they will have corresponded with relevant bodies in relation to that person. There is no way that someone who was in an institution up to the age of 18 will have had a letter from their grandchild because their grandchild would not have been born at that stage. This is therefore an unnecessary amendment.

With regard to amendment No. 66, the current definition of a genetic relative already sufficiently covers this, especially with regard to the reasons for defining a genetic relative within the legislation. It is highly unlikely that a relative beyond a parent, sibling, grandparent, aunt, uncle or cousin would have visited or corresponded with a relevant person. This is also relevant as regards access to medical information of a genetic relative, as it is highly unlikely that information pertaining to anyone beyond the list provided under the definition would exist within records or would be medically relevant and necessary for the maintenance of a relevant person's health. This amendment is also unnecessary.

It is important to emphasise that both these amendments, Nos. 65 and 66, could jeopardise the release of a genetic relative's information to a relevant person if the definition ended up containing vague or unsupported categories of relatives, as it would not meet the necessity and proportionality test that releasing the personal sensitive data of a genetic relative to a third party would involve.

I cannot support the list of information suggested under amendments Nos. 67 and 69 as the name of the genetic relative and their potential status as an adopted person is their own personal data and not the personal data of the relevant person. This was confirmed by the Data Protection Commissioner when appearing before the committee. The other suggested additions under this amendment, namely, sex of siblings and position within the family order, are already provided for under the existing definition of a genetic relative.

I cannot support amendment No. 68. Where this information is contained within a file, it will be released under the current definition of genetic relative information. However, there cannot be a guarantee that this information is accessible and available on all files, as it is totally dependent on a person's position within the family order and whether siblings existed at the time of the record's creation. I therefore cannot guarantee its release in all cases. However, the database of the commission of investigation, which created a single record of a mother and her children and which we protected under legislation passed in 2020, should be helpful in that regard.