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

We are agreed that there have been lots of variations of this and that the understanding of how best to balance rights has changed and developed. The problem remains that the mandatory information session strikes many adopted persons as an unduly paternalistic approach. It is still balanced too much on that side. It harks back to when the view was taken that we could not give people access to information and there had to be conditions. It is still a condition on access. In a previous debate on this, Professor Conor O'Mahony talked about privacy rights trumping identity rights. It still seems like that is what is happening with the mandatory information session. We must trust people. We trust people who receive a court summons by registered post. There is a point where you have to trust people. The Minister raised a couple of practical issues around email or registered post. Those are very easily surmountable because the provision I have set out simply states that the statement of information will go by registered post. All the other information can go by email or any other means. It is very easy to get around that problem. We have other protections for privacy rights. We have the age limit and the contact preference register. We have built into this statutory framework other protections and recognitions of that right.

I will come back to the two practical points I have raised, which also go to the kernel of the issue about an information session. First, what if an adopted person does not wish to take the call? Will they simply not have access to their identity information? It is a condition on their access and it is not possible to see it any other way. Granted, it is a much reduced condition compared to what was in previous versions of the Bill. Second, what happens if there is a dispute or disagreement over what was said in the phone call? A written statement setting out information, however it is delivered, is far clearer evidence that that information was delivered. I am concerned that issues could arise around the manner in which information is conveyed in that phone call and the lack of any evidentiary back-up for it. Those are two issues we discussed in the committee and it was one of the reasons all its members, including Government representatives, agreed on that recommendation. That is what I am trying to give effect to in amendment No. 199. I would love to hear the Minister's response to the point that it is this a condition, albeit a more minimal one, and as to what would happen if there were some disagreement over the phone call.