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

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 15, to delete lines 7 to 36, to delete pages 16 and 17, and in page 18, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following: "6.An tArd-Chláraitheoirshall on an application made by a relevant person, a record of whose birth is kept by an tArd-Chláraitheoirand who has reached the age of 16 years, supply to that person on payment of the prescribed fee (if any) such information as is necessary to enable that person to obtain a certified copy of the record of his or her birth.".

This is the group of amendments that primarily deals with the information session, which is always going to be a contentious issue for us. I see some very positive changes that have been made since Committee Stage but this remains. This is the make-or-break section. If somebody registers a no-contact preference and the person seeking information does not adhere to attending this meeting, he or she will not get his or her information. I cannot look past this. It is so wrong. It means we cannot say that everybody has access, guaranteed access or a right of access. It does not matter if it affects only one or two people. Sometimes the argument is used that it is envisaged it will affect a small number of people. The number of people affected does not matter. It is the principle of it. People feel very exercised about it. They feel really strongly. On Second Stage a number of Government representatives shared this view and asked that it be looked at.

When the committee looked at this, we worked very well together. We came up with the alternative of a letter by registered post. This has since been dismissed by the Government. We discussed it for a long time. With the exception of the Minister, all of us here are members of the committee. I do not want to speak for anyone but we agreed it was a good alternative. One reason it is such a good alternative is that it protects the State because there is a record that a letter went to a specific person and nobody can dispute it. We will be going into "he said, she said" scenarios if we have this type of meeting, whether it is on Zoom or Teams, in a phone call or in person. People will misinterpret information. This would protect everybody. There has been huge progress on the Bill and I acknowledge this. I was very critical on Second Stage. I like to acknowledge progress where I see it and to be welcoming of that which we can welcome. This will be the issue that ultimately will see us unable to support the Bill and I am sorry to say this. We feel this strongly about it.

See this speech in context