Dr. Karen McAuley:

I thank the Deputy for her questions. There are a number of points and I will try to be as brief as I can. An important point for us to raise on what is currently provided for in the Bill relating to the ages at which children may obtain identifying and non-identifying information, and the ages at which a parent or guardian will do so on their behalf, is the rationale for what is provided is not clear to us. There are a couple of issues. First, we are concerned about the fact that while a child is defined in the legislation, broadly, as a person under the age of 18, when it comes to the whole question of applying to access information, 16- and 17-year-olds are being defined as adults. That is not appropriate from a child rights perspective because it removes the scope of any additional safeguards and supports a child might benefit from having the option of accessing by virtue of being under the age of 18. The Bill should be consistent in respect of access to information about identity and should consistently apply the definition of a child as a person under the age of 18.

The second piece around the recommendation we made is about having regard to the international children's rights standards, where children's rights to information about their origins and preservation of their identity are held as children. The international standards, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, etc., do not prescribe a minimum age at which children should be able to exercise that right. Quite an agile approach is provided for, which is that the child is the rights holder and the person entitled to exercise his or her rights as a child. The role and responsibility of parents is to support children in the exercise of their rights in accordance with children's evolving capacities.

We appreciate it is challenging but we suggest the committee might like to think about providing for a more agile approach rather than looking at the whole question of minimum ages because it is quite precarious. If committee members feel the need to look at prescribing a minimum age, whether it is what in the legislation right now or another age, we encourage them to think about the specific purpose of prescribing that minimum age. What will it achieve for the child?