Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I would like to come in on a couple of things the Minister said, including that this could be a constitutional problem.

I do not think that anyone for a second believes we would have to change the Constitution to allow people to exercise a right they ultimately should and do already have. We had that conversation around the general data protection regulation, GDPR, and law. There is a recognition now that GDPR applies here, therefore, people have a right to this information. Saying there is a constitutional barrier is ridiculous. There is no constitutional barrier to people accessing their information. It is also acting like this Bill is doing them some kind of favour. Ultimately, it is worth questioning whether we even need this Bill and legislation. If we just acknowledged people's rights to their information, we would not be sitting here having long debates about these things.

The other false narrative that is continuously spun, to the point where even Opposition Deputies are saying the same lines, is that we must balance the right of the parent to his or her privacy with the right of the adopted person's right to information. That is not based on any kind of reality. What we heard at committee during pre-legislative scrutiny was that more people are registering a no-contact preference who are the adopted people, and not the parents. There is this constant narrative that what the Government and this legislation is doing is trying to protect the parents who have a right to privacy. Where has that come from? We hear these constant lines that are based on no reality, as far as I can tell. After what was a long process of pre-legislative scrutiny with different representative organisations and people appearing before the committee, of course, we had loads of personal engagement with individuals who have been affected by this. The narrative creates this feeling of trying to protect parents from their children. It is unnecessary and untrue.

Finally, the Minister made a point at the end of his contribution about section 30. He referenced people like Dr. Maeve O'Rourke and Dr. Fred Logue and suggested that an information session is a must-have. That is really the opposite of what we heard from experts. He said it has been recommended by many reputable sources. We heard it refuted by many reputable sources at committee that we do not need that mandatory information session. That seems to me like cherry-picking information to argue for something that is unnecessary and which people have highlighted repeatedly. It is insulting for them. As Deputy Bacik said, the suggestion, which the Minister cited, came from years ago when people were still trying to get this legislation moving.

We have come a long way from there, and not only we in the Oireachtas but the whole country, in terms of saying enough of these different barriers and things being put in place, and these kinds of narratives around people's situations. It is not necessary and often also not true. The Minister has done much work in this area since he took office. If there is one thing he could change in this legislation, this seems to be the thing that means so much to people. Will he please consider it? I do not think we have to stick to it. That is what we heard from many experts in this area at pre-legislative scrutiny. I am pleading with the Minister to reconsider this provision