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

It will support the delivery of certain specialised tracing services in respect of suspected instances of illegal birth registration. It is, in part, to respond to some of the recommendations of the special rapporteur's report on illegal birth registration and to give additional powers to respond to that.

In respect of the set of amendments that have been proposed, the provisions of the Bill allow for a tracing service and provide a statutory underpinning for a tracing service, a statutory underpinning that has been missing up to this point. It has meant that tracing is far more difficult for anybody, be it Tusla or the Adoption Authority of Ireland, AAI, to undertake. First, it is important to say that by giving tracing a statutory underpinning we will significantly improve the ability of these bodies to engage with other State bodies. Right now, GDPR is immediately used as a barrier to the exchange of information. The statutory obligation to share information with Tusla and the AAI will facilitate the provision of this information. It is also important to recognise that these are the bodies that have expertise and skill in tracing. We are very clear that we want people to be able to get the benefit of a tracing service immediately. It is important to say that these are the agencies with that level of expertise at present.

In terms of the specific amendments, we believe what is proposed in amendment No. 269 is already sufficiently provided for under this section. In response to amendment No. 288, our view is that it is unnecessary as the guidelines are only relevant to the authority and agency in providing tracing services and they do not need to be expanded to include bodies from which the authority and agency can request information. Those bodies do not have functions under this Part, only an obligation to comply with a request for information made in the context of a trace.

Amendment No. 274 is contrary to the policy intention of the legislation. Section 33 is an important provision to cover a potential situation where people must be traced and contacted with important information. To remove that reference could be detrimental should that situation arise.

With regard to amendments Nos. 268 and 270, I cannot see the necessity for those amendments. They would actually hinder the ability to provide a timely and efficient service. Amendment No. 268 seeks to remove the ability to refer to the contact preference register in the provision of a tracing service by either the agency or the authority and it does not provide for an alternative process. The decision to include this provision in the legislation was carefully considered. The ability to check a contact preference on the contact preference register is a very important part of how the tracing service will operate. First, in a scenario where a trace has been initiated and the preference for contact is found to be on the register, then it is possible to immediately and efficiently proceed to the facilitation of whatever level of contact has been proffered by both parties, including up to a reunion or a sharing of information. It would avoid the need to go through a protracted tracing process if they can immediately refer to what is set out by parties on the contact preference register. Second, in a situation where a trace has been initiated and the preference for no contact is found on the register, this information is conveyed to the person who requested the trace and the person can decide whether or not to proceed. In both scenarios, by providing that the data on the register can be processed as part of the trace, the process is made more efficient.

Amendment No. 270 seeks to place restrictions on the manner in which the tracing service operates. During the drafting process, my officials and I engaged with the organisations currently providing tracing services.

We requested their assistance in identifying the bodies from which information requests would be crucial to the provision of an effective and timely tracing service. As far as we are aware, the current non-statutory tracing service encounters very significant difficulties, delays and obstructions in the provision of its service due to the fact it cannot request key information from other bodies such as those listed in this legislation.

The purpose of section 34 is to ensure the tracing service provided under this legislation can operate in the most efficient manner possible and, therefore, accepting this amendment would be contrary to that goal and it would undermine that particular intention.