Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)

Does the Minister of State realise how offensive and devastating his remarks and response are? He is defensive of his and the Government's position, but he ought to have regard to the people and families involved in adoption - the individual person, birth parents, birth siblings, with whom adopted children could build up a good relationship if they could make contact with them, and their adoptive families who love them to bits and fully support their search for information. We have made it clear that we are not being prescriptive but providing this as an option. We seek to provide an enabling function. I just cannot understand what it is the Minister of State has to fear.

The people who set up adoption here set it up in the context of a confessional State controlled by the churches, where being adopted was a sign that the person had been born out of wedlock and was a lesser person than others. That is not the case now. It never was the case. Deputy Andrews, as Minister with responsibility for children, should be here to vindicate rather than frustrate the rights of people who have been adopted and the people involved in the complexity of adoptions.

On the issue of medical histories, I do not know what hospitals the Minister of State has visited or where he has had his pulse taken and although he has never had a baby, his wife had children and he is a parent. I would like to remind him of some of the questions that are put to people attending hospital. If they have children, they are asked about their previous medical history. If someone suffers from epilepsy, it is important to know the family medical history to access information on prognosis, outcome and treatment. It is important to have access to the medical history if someone is bipolar. When dealing with diabetes, hypertension or heart conditions it is very important as part of modern medicine to have access to the medical history, as in terms of prevention, these conditions are all very much influenced by the family history. I do not know what hospitals or clinics the Minister of State attends, but medical history is a core part of modern medicine and is an important issue for people who are adopted and their children.

I am utterly disappointed with the Minister of State's response. Is he still trying to protect the Catholic Church? Is he still trying to protect the adoption agencies that owned the children who were given up and which still want to continue their control over people's lives, long after many of the people who made these arrangements have gone to their graves? Practice has changed everywhere else in the world. Why is the Minister of State standing against reasonable change?

See this speech in context