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

It is unfortunate timing that all of us are due to speak in the Chamber for statements on International Women's Day just as these crucial amendments are coming up so I express regret that we will be in and out of the Chamber. My amendments in this grouping are Nos. 119 to 122, inclusive; Nos. 123 to 126, inclusive; Nos. 132 to 137, inclusive; and No. 144. I have other amendments in the next grouping as well, all of which relate to the mandatory information session, which as we have all heard and know, is the most contentious issue in the Bill as it currently stands. We know the long history and that what is being proposed by the Minister and Department is an improvement on what went before in terms of conditions on access but nonetheless requiring a information session means that access remains conditional. During pre-legislative scrutiny, all of us devised an alternative arrangement involving a registered post letter, which we believed would have answered the arguments made by the Minister and Department about some sort of communication and would have been infinitely preferable to requiring an information session.

There are two key points. What happens if an adopted person refuses to engage or does not wish to engage in the information session? I know the Minister talks about untrammelled access to information but the reality is that there is that condition that the records cannot be released unless the information session is engaged in and there does not seem to us to be any recourse to be had if a person does not wish to engage in that information session so it is a condition on access. I cannot see how it could not be. These amendments are designed to remove that condition on access. Amendment No. 199 in the next group will replace it with a registered post provision similar to the recommendation in our report.

The second point, which was made by Deputy Cairns, is that we took the view that registered post would also be a safer option from everyone's point of view because it sets out in writing any issues whereas the content of a phone call can be very problematic. It can be very difficult for somebody in a vulnerable position to take a phone call and it can be very difficult to establish what was said in a phone call or have any clarity or record of what was said in a phone call. To require mandatory information sessions and say it can be done by phone still amounts to a condition on access to the data, records and actual life information of the individual. It also seems to be less safe and secure than the registered post option we suggested to meet the constitutional argument that was made by the Department to ensure there would be free right of access to information and birth records.