Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I have tabled a number of amendments in this grouping. Most of them are technical. My substantive amendment is No. 59, which deals with the issue of the mandatory information session. This is the big sticking point for us with the Bill. I am very disappointed we did not see progress made on it on Committee Stage. We had a full debate with the Minister and I acknowledge how much progress was made on other issues on Committee Stage and since then. We all appreciate the improvements that have been made to the Bill.

This is still a difficult point for us and for those seeking information. It means access to birth information remains conditional in certain cases on the holding of this information session. We all accept, as the Minister said on Committee and Second Stages, the need to balance information rights and privacy rights. For us the retention of the mandatory information session means privacy rights continue to trump identity rights. During the pre-legislative scrutiny the committee put forward a unanimous recommendation that an alternative to a mandatory information session as a safeguard to ensure the balance of rights would be sending an appropriate statement by registered post. In amendment No. 59 I have crafted a mechanism whereby such a statement could be sent by the authority, setting out the relevant matters in writing to a person seeking information. In my view this would be a sufficient safeguard, along with the other safeguards in the legislation such as the information campaign, the contact preference register and the age limit, to ensure these constitutional rights are balanced. It would be a more practical mechanism because it would ensure there could be no dispute as to what was said and whether a Zoom call or a meeting had in fact taken place. It would also show trust in the people seeking information that they would receive this statement and it would be sufficient.

Since Committee Stage I looked again at section 17 to see what the Government proposes as a safeguard. The information session need not be in one place but it does require that each participant is able, directly or by means of electronic communications technology, to speak to and be heard by the other participants. It sets out in subsection (2) the relevant information about which the designated person is to inform the adopted person seeking the information. Why can this information not simply be set out in a written statement and sent by registered post so there is proof that it has been received? This is particularly so when section 17(4) requires the designated person, on completion of the information session, to confirm it has taken place and to provide notification. There is already in the Government's proposal a mechanism for a written statement. Why not bypass the mandatory information session and bypass this condition on access to information and, as the committee recommended as an ending of a rather paternalistic approach requiring an information session, simply send a statement by registered post? It is what we do with court summons and other important legal documents. We think this would be a far preferable method of informing somebody. It would mean there could be no condition on access.

I asked the following on Committee Stage and still do not have a response. What if the adopted persons will not take the Zoom call or meet the designated person? It would mean they would not get access to the information, as I understand it. It is a condition upon access to information. This is against the spirit of the Bill, the otherwise inclusive text in the Bill and the great improvement the Bill makes to the very dated and patriarchal culture we all want to see changed. It has changed so much in so many other provisions of the Bill. It is most regrettable we have not seen movement on the information session. Amendment No. 59 in particular seeks to make this change and put into effect what the committee unanimously recommended during pre-legislative scrutiny.

See this speech in context