Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I understand all the complexities and difficulties attached to the issue historically. When we look at some of the ridiculous suggestions proposed in some of the Bills in recent years, I accept that today we have moved on. In fairness to the Minister, he has delivered this legislation, unlike others before him who talked a lot of talk. I would love to be able to welcome the Bill without any reservations but, unfortunately, I have serious reservations. While discussion of the Bill should be considered landmark occasions when we finally move forward, there is potential for serious mistakes to be made in particular with the mandatory information session. I do not believe it has been removed. I accept that the requirement for it to be in person with a social worker has changed, but there is still an information session and it still explicitly states in the legislation that part of the reason for this is to explain to the relevant person the importance of the privacy rights of the parent. That was something that came up in every single one of the PLS sessions. I acknowledge the presence of Deputies Bacik and Murnane O'Connor from the committee. The committee worked so well together. We all know in this House that at times things can get fraught on committees, but there was genuine goodwill on everybody's part – Government and Opposition representatives. We had 83 recommendations. The Minister referred in his speech to changes on a number of issues that came up during PLS. However, on the really big issues, such as the mandatory information session, we made a suggestion in the report about looking at alternatives, one potentially being the registered post option. I do not understand why that could not be considered. Sinn Féin will table amendments to that effect on Committee Stage.

Medical history is a grey area. I acknowledge what the Minister says. I am pleased to get clarity on an adopted person. However, my fear is that in the case of a person who does not know much about his or her life other than that he or she was adopted, people will say they are looking for their medical history and that is a grey area whether a medical practitioner is involved or not. In the case of a family medical history, there is a chance that there will be a genetic relative, as the Minister described in his speech, so does that mean then they are in a different process? In terms of the wording "relevant data", is not all the data relevant to them if it is about them and their personal life? I am not adopted and I can get all of that information. Why do we have a different set of rules for people who are adopted and, in the same breath, say we are trying to end the discrimination they faced for years? I am not saying it to be critical for the sake of it. As Chair of the committee, I would love nothing more than for the Bill to go through Committee Stage without any amendments because we have done a significant amount of work in the committee on the Bill and other areas relating to mother and baby homes. That is the reason I feel I must raise these issues, and on behalf of people who have contacted us.

It was a missed opportunity not to develop a new agency. We acknowledged that it could not happen overnight and that a new agency would require time to develop at a time when we do not want to delay matters given that many of those who are affected do not have time. We recommended an Ombudsman-type body for appeals and oversight of Tusla and the Adoption Authority of Ireland in the meantime. I do not believe the recommendation has been taken on board. Given that redress will be the next matter we will be talking about in this Chamber in a few months, a new agency would have been appropriate. It could have been a time-limited one, as it potentially does not need to be in existence forever.

I seek clarity on Part 4. I am not sure I understand it correctly. There is a hierarchy in terms of next of kin, starting with a mother or father. The Minister can come back to me on this if he wishes. I refer to a case where somebody has died in care. In the event that perhaps the parent does not want to get the information, but a sibling does, is he or she entitled to get it or must the parents have passed away? That is an issue on which I genuinely seek clarity.

The Minister indicated that he will take recommendations on board in the guidelines that are being produced regarding the release of medical data. I do not understand why that could not have been included in the legislation. I do not want to be cynical, but it is easy for the Minister to say he will take them on board in the guidelines when it is not in the legislation. Significant work was done by every single person on the committee and I feel strongly that there are many missed opportunities, in particular in terms of the mandatory information session and the new agency.

I would welcome more clarity and perhaps a briefing from departmental officials on medical information in particular. I hope it is the case that my understanding is incorrect, because that would be welcome, but I fear there will be grey areas as to whether people are entitled to data and if it is relevant to them. People who do not know much about their own lives will not know exactly what information they are looking for and I am concerned that it might be considered too general. I will leave it at that for now.

See this speech in context