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

Okay. Apologies, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. In the context of amendment No. 14, which was tabled by Deputy Funchion, this issue was raised on Committee Stage. We acknowledge that the assurance about the release not just of the information but of the documents that was repeated in other parts of the legislation had not been continued on there. We recognise that was an error in the drafting.

Amendment No. 14 seeks to amend the definition of medical information to read medical records. The intention of this amendment is similar to the intention of my own amendments Nos. 56, 57 and 63 in that it seeks to ensure the release of medical records to a relevant person as opposed to the information contained within a record. My own amendments No. 56, 57 and 63 seek to remedy an oversight in the originally published Bill, which provided for the medical information of a relevant person but not for the record itself to be released directly to that person. I know this was an issue of concern on Committee Stage, and I signalled I would table this amendment. The Government amendment will ensure it is the record containing medical information that will be released to a relevant person. I therefore think I am addressing Deputy Funchion’s amendment No. 14 in the context of those three amendments. I will speak to her other amendments a little later.

In terms of the amendment that was tabled by Deputy Cairns, we debated extensively about whether relevant persons and people who are seeking this legislation should be given all information, irrespective of whether they apply for it, or whether they should have a choice about information when making an application. As we have made very clear, a person will be able to tick a box and apply for all information. We have also made it clear that people can select which types of information they wish to receive. I think it is a good thing we give people agency over their determination about what information they can receive. There may be reasons - and I do not know what those reasons are - people do not wish to receive medical information. There may be something about their history they do not want to know. If they wish to make that choice, that is a choice they should make, and the legislation should not constrain or compel them to receive information that they may not wish to receive.

Deputy Cairns is right this issue did not arise in pre-legislative scrutiny. However, we have to recognise there are a substantial number of survivors in this area. Different survivors, as we all know from our engagements, have different views. Therefore, leaving the legislation as it is and giving people choice on that matter is the best way to proceed.

See this speech in context