Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 229:

In page 28, to delete line 36.

I will speak to amendments Nos. 229 to 231 first. This group of amendments removes the phrase "to which the application relates only" from the information that should be provided to relatives of deceased adopted people as this represents a restriction on the information provided. For example, if a relative of a deceased adopted person has cancer and as a result had applied for a family medical history, according to the Bill only medical information relating to cancer will be given. What if information in relating to heart disease or another medical condition is available on the file? I believe I have discussed this already with the Minister and I am repeating myself.

Amendments Nos. 232 to 234, inclusive, concern the provision that only information that is relevant to the health of the relevant person will be released. Amendment No. 233 removes the requirement for the information to be provided to the medical practitioner. The Department's data protection impact assessment states that this measure is necessary in order to mitigate the risks of a genetic relative being identified. However, as any identifying information will already have been removed, the requirement to release the information to a medical practitioner is completely unnecessary.

Amendment No. 235 ensures the location of all medical information that is available on file.

Amendment No. 236 ensures that a person with expertise in reading documents is involved in the process.

Amendments Nos. 240 and 241 widen the definition of a record by including that which relates to any relevant person and in section 2 the Bill defines a relevant person as someone who may apply to Tusla for information. These two amendments further strengthen the Bill's ability to ensure that records, data and information are not withheld by any means.