Dáil debates

Wednesday, 27 April 2022

Birth Information and Tracing Bill 2022: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage

 

Debate resumed on amendment No. 18:

-(Deputy Kathleen Funchion)

5:02 pm

Photo of Seán Ó FearghaílSeán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe the Minister has spoken twice already on this group of amendments. Is that correct?

5:12 pm

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thought I only spoke once.

Photo of Seán Ó FearghaílSeán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will give the Minister two minutes in order to have that flexibility.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you.

We do trust women. That is why in every situation where this Bill is used, the full information will be provided to a woman, or any adopted person, or any person subjected to an illegal birth registration. All of the information about their parent, their mother, will be released to them. That is why this legislation is so significant. That is why this legislation represents such a change. We trust people so we issue them the information in every situation under the process set out within this legislation.

Deputy Bacik asked a question and I believe I answered it on Committee Stage. If someone decides not to use the process set out in this legislation, they may use the GDPR process. They have the right to do that. GDPR will probably give them much of what is here, maybe all of what is here, whereas this legislation gives them the absolute right in every circumstance to the full information. GDPR brings us back to the place where we do not want to be, where the data controller in each individual situation weighs the rights of the parent with the rights of the adopted person and makes a judgment call in every situation. That is what we want to move away from; and that is what we move away from with this legislation. Using this legislation, everyone in every circumstance will get full access to their information.

Again, sometimes I think there is no recognition of the stakes here. What we are doing is a very significant restriction of the privacy rights of the parent in these situations. It is right that we do it. We need to do it to vindicate the right to identity. However, like it or not, we have a system in this country where, when the Oireachtas restricts the fundamental rights of certain citizens, the courts have a right to adjudicate whether that restriction was done correctly and whether it was done proportionately. We know from the history of this area that it is an area that is litigated, and people feel so strongly about their desire not to be revealed that they have taken litigation before. We have gone with the alternative to the Attorney General and we have discussed that. The legal advice I have received is that the mechanism proposed here is the greatest restriction on the privacy rights that we can allow for without a risk of unconstitutionality.

Photo of Seán Ó FearghaílSeán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are over time.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As somebody who passionately wants to see legislation passed that will allow every adopted person and every person who was subject to an illegal birth registration get their full information, I have to accept that advice and I have to act on that advice. That is why I believe the process set out in this Bill, which will always result in full access to all information, is the process that should be adopted.

Photo of Seán Ó FearghaílSeán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Given the sensitivity and importance of this matter, I am anxious to be as flexible as possible but I must still adhere to Standing Orders. Deputy Funchion is the only Member at this point who is entitled to speak a third time. I call Deputy Funchion.

Photo of Kathleen FunchionKathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In fairness, the points have been covered by Deputies Bacik, Cairns and Connolly. I want to clarify again that nobody is saying that people should not have a right to register a no-contact preference. It is very important that point is clarified. What we are arguing is how that information then has an impact on the adopted person getting their information. That has been said with regard to people having the right. We fully accept that people have the right to register a no-contact preference and that is not the issue here. I want to make that point very clear. It is how that information is communicated. Some people will argue there is no need for any sort of an information session. What we are saying is that if there is a need, it should be done by registered letter. I still have not been convinced as to why that is not the case.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Kathleen FunchionKathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 16, to delete lines 4 to 37, and in page 17, to delete lines 1 to 8.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 16, lines 17 and 18, to delete “, and an information session has already taken place”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 16, lines 20 and 21, to delete “and no information session has taken place”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 16, line 25, to delete “paragraph (a), (b), (c)or (d)of”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 16, to delete lines 35 to 37, and in page 17, to delete lines 1 to 4.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Kathleen FunchionKathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 17, to delete lines 9 to 38, and in page 18, to delete lines 1 to 3.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 17, lines 26 and 27, to delete “, and an information session has already taken place”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 17, lines 29 and 30, to delete “and no information session has taken place”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 17, line 31, to delete “paragraph (a), (b), (c)or (d)of”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 17, to delete lines 35 to 38, and in page 18, to delete lines 1 to 3.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Kathleen FunchionKathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 18, to delete lines 4 to 39, to delete pages 19 to 22, and in page 23, to delete lines 1 to 11 and substitute the following:

“9. A relevant body shall on an application by a relevant person who has reached the age of 16 years supply to that person all personal data relating to the relevant person.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Kathleen FunchionKathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 18, to delete lines 4 to 39, and in page 19, to delete lines 1 to 27.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 18, lines 6 to 9, to delete all words from and including “A” in line 6 down to and including line 9 and substitute the following: “A relevant person who has attained the age of 18 years (in this section referred to as an “applicant”) may apply in writing to a relevant body for the provision by the relevant body to him or her of either or both of the following that is held by the relevant body:
(a) the birth information that relates to him or her;

(b) a photograph or other image of his or her mother or father contained in a record specified in subsection (8).”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 18, line 19, to delete “and”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 18, line 21, to delete “holds.” and substitute “holds, and”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 18, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

“(c) in the case of an application for a photograph or other image referred to in subsection (1)(b), shall, as it considers appropriate⁠- (i) provide the applicant with the photograph or other image, and retain a copy, or

(ii) retain the photograph or other image and provide the applicant with a copy.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 18, lines 33 and 34, to delete “, and an information session has already taken place”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 18, lines 36 and 37, to delete “and no information session has taken place”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 19, lines 1 and 2, to delete “paragraph (a), (b), (c)or (d) of”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 19, to delete lines 10 to 15.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 19, line 18, to delete “adoption;” and substitute “adoption, including an adoption order made in respect of the person;”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 19, to delete lines 25 to 27 and substitute the following: “(10) In this section and section 10, “relevant parent” means⁠-
(a) in relation to birth information relating to an applicant, a person, or each person, who is named as a parent of the applicant in the records containing the birth information concerned, and

(b) in relation to a photograph or other image of a parent of an applicant, a parent of the applicant whose image is contained in the photograph or other image concerned.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 19, lines 30 to 33, to delete all words from and including “A” in line 30 down to and including line 33 and substitute the following: “A relevant person who has attained the age of 16 years but who has not attained the age of 18 years (in this section referred to as an “applicant”) may apply in writing to the Authority for the provision by the Authority to him or her of either or both of the following that is held by it or by the Agency:
(a) the birth information that relates to him or her;

(b) a photograph or other image of his or her mother or father contained in a record specified in section 9(8).”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 20, line 5, to delete “and”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 20, line 7, to delete “holds.” and substitute “holds, and”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 20, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following: “(c) in the case of an application for a photograph or other image referred to in subsection (1)(b), shall, as it considers appropriate⁠-
(i) provide the applicant with the photograph or other image, and retain a copy, or

(ii) retain the photograph or other image and provide the applicant with a copy.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 20, lines 17 and 18, to delete “, and an information session has already taken place”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

5:22 pm

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 46:

In page 20, lines 20 and 21, to delete “and no information session has taken place”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 47:

In page 20, line 22, to delete “paragraph (a), (b), (c) or(d)of”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 48:

In page 20, line 24, to delete “information” and substitute “information, photograph or other image”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 20, to delete lines 26 to 31.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 50:

In page 21, line 9, to delete “and”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 51:

In page 21, line 12, to delete “holds.” and substitute “holds, and”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 52:

In page 21, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following: “(c) where the early life information to which the application relates includes a photograph or other image of the applicant, shall, as it considers appropriate—
(i) provide the applicant with the photograph or other image, and retain a copy, or

(ii) retain the photograph or other image and provide the applicant with a copy.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 53:

In page 21, line 28, to delete “and” where it secondly occurs.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 21, line 31, to delete “holds.” and substitute “holds, and”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 55:

In page 21, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following: “(c) where the early life information to which the application relates includes a photograph or other image of the applicant, shall, as it considers appropriate—
(i) provide the applicant with the photograph or other image, and retain a copy, or

(ii) retain the photograph or other image and provide the applicant with a copy.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 56:

In page 22, to delete lines 30 to 32 and substitute the following: “(2) Subject to this section, a relevant body, on application to it made in accordance with subsection (1)
(a) shall, to the extent that it is practicable to do so, provide the relevant person with a copy of the records specified in subsection (6)that it holds that contain the medical information to which the application relates, and

(b) may provide the relevant person with a statement setting out the medical information to which the application relates that is contained in the records referred to in paragraph (a).”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 57:

In page 23, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following: “(4) Subject to this section, a relevant body, on application to it made in accordance with subsection (3), and in accordance with section 18
(a) shall, to the extent that it is practicable to do so, provide the relevant person with a copy of the records specified in subsection (6)that it holds that contain the medical information to which the application relates, and

(b) may provide the relevant person with a statement setting out the medical information to which the application relates that is contained in the records referred to in paragraph (a).”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Holly CairnsHolly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 58:

In page 23, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: “(6) When a relevant person applies under sections 11 and 12 for information and/or when a relevant person applies for their personal data, the relevant body or the Authority will make available all medical records to the relevant person regardless of whether they have explicitly requested those items.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 59:

In page 24, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

“Information relating to contact preference

17.In every case where an applicant is provided under this Act with a copy of the records that contain the birth information to which the application relates, or with a statement setting out the birth information contained in those records, the Authority shall send to the applicant, by prepaid registered post or other recorded delivery, a statement by the Authority setting out, in so far as it has established in relation to each relevant parent, whether— (a) he or she has not made a statement under section 38(11),

(b) he or she has made a statement under section 38(11)that either of the following applies:
(i) he or she is seeking to have contact with the applicant;

(ii) he or she is willing to be contacted by the applicant,
(c) he or she has made a statement under section 38(11)that he or she is not willing to be contacted by the applicant,

(d) he or she is deceased,

(e) he or she is not willing to be contacted by the applicant.”.

Amendment put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 71; Staon, 0.


Tellers: Tá, Deputies Ivana Bacik and Kathleen Funchion; Níl, Deputies Jack Chambers and Brendan Griffin.

Chris Andrews, Ivana Bacik, Mick Barry, John Brady, Martin Browne, Pat Buckley, Holly Cairns, Seán Canney, Matt Carthy, Sorca Clarke, Michael Collins, Catherine Connolly, Rose Conway-Walsh, Réada Cronin, Seán Crowe, Pa Daly, Pearse Doherty, Paul Donnelly, Dessie Ellis, Mairead Farrell, Kathleen Funchion, Gary Gannon, Thomas Gould, Johnny Guirke, Danny Healy-Rae, Michael Healy-Rae, Brendan Howlin, Martin Kenny, Claire Kerrane, Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, Mattie McGrath, Michael McNamara, Denise Mitchell, Imelda Munster, Catherine Murphy, Paul Murphy, Verona Murphy, Johnny Mythen, Gerald Nash, Denis Naughten, Carol Nolan, Cian O'Callaghan, Richard O'Donoghue, Louise O'Reilly, Darren O'Rourke, Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire, Ruairi Ó Murchú, Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, Aengus Ó Snodaigh, Maurice Quinlivan, Patricia Ryan, Matt Shanahan, Seán Sherlock, Róisín Shortall, Brian Stanley, Peadar Tóibín, Pauline Tully, Mark Ward, Jennifer Whitmore.

Níl

Colm Brophy, James Browne, Richard Bruton, Colm Burke, Mary Butler, Thomas Byrne, Jackie Cahill, Ciarán Cannon, Joe Carey, Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, Jack Chambers, Niall Collins, Patrick Costello, Barry Cowen, Michael Creed, Cathal Crowe, Cormac Devlin, Alan Dillon, Francis Noel Duffy, Bernard Durkan, Damien English, Alan Farrell, Frank Feighan, Peter Fitzpatrick, Joe Flaherty, Charles Flanagan, Seán Fleming, Norma Foley, Noel Grealish, Brendan Griffin, Simon Harris, Seán Haughey, Emer Higgins, Heather Humphreys, Paul Kehoe, John Lahart, James Lawless, Brian Leddin, Michael Lowry, Josepha Madigan, Catherine Martin, Steven Matthews, Helen McEntee, Michael McGrath, John McGuinness, Joe McHugh, Aindrias Moynihan, Michael Moynihan, Jennifer Murnane O'Connor, Hildegarde Naughton, Malcolm Noonan, Darragh O'Brien, Joe O'Brien, Jim O'Callaghan, James O'Connor, Willie O'Dea, Kieran O'Donnell, Patrick O'Donovan, Fergus O'Dowd, Roderic O'Gorman, Christopher O'Sullivan, Pádraig O'Sullivan, Marc Ó Cathasaigh, Éamon Ó Cuív, Anne Rabbitte, Neale Richmond, Eamon Ryan, Brendan Smith, Niamh Smyth, Ossian Smyth, David Stanton.

Amendment declared lost.

5:32 pm

Photo of Kathleen FunchionKathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 60:

In page 24, to delete lines 31 to 39, and in page 25, to delete lines 1 to 23.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Photo of Seán Ó FearghaílSeán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 61, 62 and 64 are related and will be discussed together.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 61:

In page 26, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: “(5) A relevant body shall, no later than one month after the date on which it receives an application made in accordance with the section concerned—
(a) comply, as applicable, with section 9(3),10(3),11(2),12(2),13(3),14(2),15(2)or 15(4),

(b) comply, as applicable, with section 9(9),10(7),11(3),12(3),or 15(5), or

(c) where subsection (6)applies, inform the applicant concerned of that fact and the reasons for it, and of the effect of the subsection.
(6) Where a relevant body is unable, due to the complexity of the application concerned or the nature of the information, document or item sought under the application, to comply with paragraph (a)or (b)of subsection (5), it shall comply with either paragraph not later than three months after the date on which it receives an application.”.

This is another positive set of amendments we have been able to table. They address the introduction of timelines for an application in the form of maximum statutory timeframes for the release of information under this legislation, reflecting recommendations made during the joint committee's pre-legislative scrutiny process. No amendments were tabled regarding this point on Committee Stage. I noted, however, that I would seek to bring forward a proposal on this Stage.

These amendments are important and will provide clarity for people applying for their information under this legislation. The proposed maximum timeframes mirror those used in the general data protection regulation, GDPR. We are using the GDPR timeframes as a model for the timeframes within which the various authorities and agencies will have to respond to applicants with the relevant information. Provision is made for the information to be released within one month of receipt of an application made under this legislation. In the exceptional circumstances of a particularly complex application, an additional two months is provided for the release of information. Stringent and tight timelines are provided for. This recognises the importance of getting this information. It also recognises that a concern raised during the joint committee's deliberations in respect of ensuring that people do not have their applications put on the long finger when seeking their information.

I hope this amendment can be supported.

Amendment agreed to.

5:37 pm

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 62:

In page 30, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: “(3) A relevant body shall, no later than one month after the date on which it receives an application made in accordance with the section concerned—
(a) comply, as applicable, with section 21(2), 22(2)or 23(3),

(b) comply, as applicable, with section 21(5)or 22(4), or

(c) where subsection (4)applies, inform the applicant concerned of that fact and the reasons for it, and of the effect of the subsection.
(4)Where a relevant body is unable, due to the complexity of the application concerned or the nature of the information, document or item sought under the application, to comply with paragraph (a)or (b)of subsection (3), it shall comply with either paragraph not later than three months after the date on which it receives an application.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 63:

In page 32, to delete lines 29 to 31 and substitute the following: “(2) Subject to this section, a relevant body, on application to it made in accordance with subsection (1)
(a) shall, to the extent that it is practicable to do so, provide the applicant concerned with a copy of the records specified in subsection (4)that it holds that contain the medical information to which the application relates, and

(b) may provide the applicant with a statement setting out the medical information to which the application relates that is contained in the records referred to in paragraph (a).”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 64:

In page 33, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “(3) A relevant body shall, no later than one month after the date on which it receives an application made in accordance with the section concerned—
(a) comply, as applicable, with section 27(2), 28(2), 29(2)or 30(2),

(b) comply, as applicable, with section 27(5), 28(4)or 30(3), or

(c) where subsection (4)applies, inform the applicant concerned of that fact and the reasons for it, and of the effect of the subsection.
(4) Where a relevant body is unable, due to the complexity of the application concerned or the nature of the information, document or item sought under the application, to comply with paragraph (a)or (b)of subsection (3), it shall comply with either paragraph not later than three months after the date on which it receives an application.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Seán Ó FearghaílSeán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 65 to 67, inclusive, and 69 to 72, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 65:

In page 33, to delete line 27.

This is a particularly important group of amendments. Deputy Bacik referred to them earlier. They provide for further services for persons who believe that their birth was illegally registered. These are services that are recommended by the special rapporteur for child protection, Professor Conor O'Mahony, in the report which he submitted to me last October and which I published in March of this year. The special rapporteur set out 17 recommendations in his report. These amendments give effect to recommendations 8 to 12, which were to create a specialist tracing service to undertake a review and a full trace of files where Tusla had previously found suspicious markers. The recommendations also seek an expedited review for persons who hold reasonable suspicions that they may have been the subject of an illegal birth registration in order to ascertain whether their birth was illegally registered.

To give full effect to these recommendations, amendments Nos. 65 to 67, inclusive, amend section 32 to include a new type of trace for persons who have reasonable grounds for suspecting that their birth is illegally registered. This is for that category of people and many of us have met them. They are not part of the St. Patrick's Guild group but they may have been told by a family member that their parent was not their birth parent. They may have stumbled across a piece of information. There are various reasons people may have a very real and meaningful suspicion that they may be the subject of an illegal birth registration. With these provisions, not only are they allowed to use the legislation to find information but the tracing service allows them to get clarity on the fact as to whether they were the subject of an illegal birth registration. The proposed new subsection will empower a person to request that Tusla or the authority use its tracing powers to ascertain whether the person's birth was illegally registered. This will mean a thorough review and inquiry can happen for those people who have reason to believe their birth was illegally registered. I hope this will finally give answer and closure to people in that situation.

Separately, amendments are proposed to section 33, with amendments Nos. 69 to 72, inclusive, being consequential amendments. They provide for a similar but slightly separate measure. They ensure that the Minister can direct Tusla or the authority to undertake a review of files or to trace a person in situations where it is to be established whether an illegal birth registration has taken place. Where this is established, they further empower the Minister to direct Tusla or the authority to trace the person in order to inform them that they are the subject of an illegal birth registration. Tusla and the authority will have the power to share information with each other and to seek information from the bodies listed in section 34(6) in order to establish whether an illegal birth registration occurred. This was a key recommendation from Professor O'Mahony. It is quite a significant power but it gives the power, too, where there is a very strong suspicion discovered not by an individual but by Tusla or the Adoption Authority of Ireland that someone has been the subject of an illegal birth registration. It allows a trace to be undertaken to confirm that and it allows the individual to be informed. It is about validating the key right to identity that has been denied to people who have been subject to illegal birth registrations. It is an important recommendation of Professor O'Mahony and one we are happy to be able to put into legislation here and put into operation through our additional resourcing of Tusla and the Adoption Authority of Ireland.

To summarise, these amendments provide for three key matters. First, they empower a person to apply for an inquiry to be undertaken to ascertain whether their birth was illegally registered where that is the person's wish. Second, they provide that review of files can take place where this is in the public interest. Third, they ensure that a person can be traced to inform them that their birth was illegally registered.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome this series of amendments. I referred to them previously, as the Minister said. They provide for important new mechanisms for a person who has reasonable grounds for suspecting they are the subject of an incorrect birth registration to initiate the conduct of inquiries by the agency or authority. They also empower the Minister to conduct a review. I acknowledge the work of the special rapporteur, Dr. Conor O'Mahony, and those very brave individuals who themselves were the subject of illegal adoptions and who went public with their experiences in such a powerful way to expose this awful practice that had gone on for far too long.

I acknowledge the Minister's move on this and indeed his change in light of the amendment I put in to reflect the point on "false or misleading" in respect of birth registration. I welcome that this change was made on Committee Stage, as we said earlier. These amendments really will provide additional supports and comfort to those who have been the subject of illegal birth registrations, which is very welcome.

I am disappointed, however, that we have not seen any similar movement on the mandatory information session. I know we have debated the matter and I also called a vote on it. Deputies Funchion, Cairns and I have acknowledged the movement and improvement that has been made to the legislation through the course of the legislative process. I am conscious that the Bill still has to go to the Seanad. I wonder if it would be possible for the mandatory information session to be reviewed again by the Minister, his colleagues and the Attorney General in light of the strong views expressed not just by me as the proposer of amendment No. 59 on the replacement of the mandatory information session but indeed by other colleagues too. I wonder if it could just be looked again to see if there is any other appropriate mechanism that could be inserted. We have seen a very sweeping, welcome change made, particularly in amendment No. 70, which I agree is really significant, empowering the Minister to authorise the agency and authority to conduct a review in this scenario to establish whether a person has been the subject of an illegal birth registration. This is a big change to the law and a very welcome one. Is it possible to see a way to making a similar change to the mandatory information session in section 17 between now and the conclusion of the Bill through the legislative process in the Seanad?

Photo of Kathleen FunchionKathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome these amendments as well as the earlier amendment in respect of the timeframe - the month or four weeks. I acknowledge the work that has been done, particularly around the working in amendment No. 70. It is really significant and quite strong. It shows what can be done and achieved when there is not just consultation but, as Deputy Bacik has said, all the various discussions throughout the Stages. I support what Deputy Bacik has said about the mandatory information session. We are down to the one key sticking point now but it is very significant. Is there anything that could be done to address that before the conclusion of the legislation?

Photo of Holly CairnsHolly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the changes the Minister has made to the legislation and all the work he and his Department have done on it. Is there any chance of that last change being made in respect of the mandatory information session? If we accept the Minister's argument that it has to be there, a really good compromise would be if the way it was carried could be achieved through Deputy Bacik's amendment. There would be a lot more support for the Bill if that was reconsidered in the Seanad, as Deputy Bacik has said.

Photo of Jennifer Murnane O'ConnorJennifer Murnane O'Connor (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with the previous speakers. Based on all our meetings and from listening to Professor Conor O'Mahony, these amendments are very important. They are amendments we had looked for and I welcome them. It is important for people to know that the Minister is going to make provision for a tracing inquiry to be launched.

The timeframe is another huge issue that the Minister is addressing. The committee has worked so hard on this. These amendments are really welcome and will have a huge impact on adoptees.

Amendment agreed to.

5:47 pm

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 66:

In page 33, line 30, to delete "person." and substitute "person, or".

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 67:

In page 33, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following: "(d) a person who has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he or she is the subject of an incorrect birth registration, for the purpose of the Agency or Authority conducting such enquires as it considers necessary for the purpose of ascertaining whether he or she is the subject of an incorrect birth registration.".

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Seán Ó FearghaílSeán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 68 and 74 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 68:

In page 33, line 36, to delete "Authority" and substitute "Agency".

These are very technical amendments. The first is a technical amendment to section 32(3)(c) as it refers erroneously to the authority instead of the agency. This section relates to an application for tracing. It is the agency that is the lead in tracing, and the applications will be made to it. Therefore, it should be it that specifies the manner of the application. There is also a technical amendment to section 38(6), which refers erroneously to the agency instead of the authority. This section empowers the Minister to issue directions to the authority and therefore the wording needs to be amended. It is the authority, rather than the agency, that shall comply with the direction.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 69:

In page 34, line 2, to delete "pursuant to an authorisation" and substitute "or obtaining information pursuant to a direction".

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 70:

In page 34, to delete lines 21 to 26 and substitute the following: "Minister may authorise Agency and Authority to conduct review or trace

33. (1) The Minister, where he or she is satisfied that it is necessary and in the public interest to do so, may, by direction in writing, require the Agency or the Authority to do either or both of the following:
(a) investigate whether there is evidence that a person has, or persons have, been the subject of an incorrect birth registration, including by—
(i) conducting a review of the records that it holds, or a sample or specified class of such records, and

(ii) obtaining other information relevant to such investigation;
(b) conduct a trace for the purpose of locating a person, or obtaining information, for the purpose of—
(i) obtaining evidence a person has, or persons have, been the subject of an incorrect birth registration,

(ii) confirming that a person has, or persons have, been the subject of an incorrect birth registration, or

(iii) informing a person that he or she has been the subject of an incorrect birth registration.".

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 71:

In page 34, lines 28 to 31, to delete all words from and including "On" in line 28 down to and including line 31 and substitute the following: "On receipt by it of an application under section 32, or a direction under section 33, the Agency or the Authority shall, without undue delay, take all reasonable steps in accordance with any guidelines issued under section 37 to, as applicable—

(a) trace and locate the person to whom the application or direction relates, or

(b) obtain such information as is required to comply with the direction.".

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 72:

In page 35, to delete lines 22 to 25 and substitute the following: "(8) Where the Agency or Authority, having taken the steps referred to in subsection (1)
(a) in the case of an application under section 32, is unable to locate the person 13 concerned or, in the case of an application under subsection (2)(d)of that section, to ascertain whether a person was the subject of an incorrect birth registration, it shall, in writing and without delay, inform the person who made the application concerned of that fact, or

(b) in the case of a direction under section 33, is unable to establish whether there is evidence that a person has, or persons have, been the subject of an incorrect birth registration, or to locate the person concerned, it shall, in writing and without delay, inform the Minister of that fact.".

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 73:

In page 37, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: "(g) where a parent of a relevant person is deceased, a person who, in the opinion of the Authority, had a sufficiently close connection with the parent that he or she is likely to be in possession of information that the relevant person would be willing to be provided with;".

This is another important amendment. It is particularly significant in cases where there are parents who do not reveal themselves and for whom there is a barrier to any contact with an adopted person, even if it is just about information. The amendment seeks to expand the categories of persons eligible to apply to the contact preference register to include a close friend of a parent who is now deceased. I am happy to propose this additional category. It is a positive step that reflects and recognises the close relationships a parent may have had with a friend who may have valuable information for the relevant adoptee — the person subject to an illegal birth registration — who is seeking information. We know from our consultations with the Adoption Authority of Ireland, which currently facilitates the national adoption contact preference register and that will hold the new contact preference register being established under this legislation, that friends of a parent may have important and meaningful information to share with relevant persons about a parent's time with his or her child or life after an adoption took place. The amendment will enable the sharing of this information.

The amendment is also in response to amendments brought forward by several Deputies on Committee Stage. I agreed with the spirit of those amendments and indicated I would seek to introduce amendments with the same effect on Report Stage. I refer to where a parent gave a child up for adoption and discussed it with a friend but kept it from her family. Where that parent dies without having had contact with the adopted child, the adopted child may be able to use this legislation to get the birth certificate and relevant information. The colour, the real-life experiences, are denied to the adoptee because the parent is dead but the legislation allows a friend of the parent to place their name on the contact preference register so the adopted person can, on searching the register, find someone who knew their parents and who may be able to describe who they were and their lives, and perhaps provide some important birth information that cannot be filled in with all the information about the early life. It will never make up for the fact that the adopted person will not be able to meet their parent but it can give substantial information through an engagement and, perhaps, build up a whole new relationship. I acknowledge that Deputies opposite proposed this idea. We sought to see how it could be implemented and we made provision for it in the Bill. This is another positive step and I hope Deputies will support it.

Photo of Kathleen FunchionKathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a really good move and a significant step. Maybe it was Deputy Bacik who made the proposal on Committee Stage. It was a really good suggestion and I am glad to see it in the legislation. For me, it shows that so much progress can be made. This goes back to the point that if we could just make progress on the one outstanding issue, it would make the difference between our supporting the legislation and our not doing so. The amendment is a really important one. It was really well thought out. In fairness to the officials and the Minister, it is really significant that it has been included.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I, too, welcome this amendment. It provides for a more inclusive approach, which is very welcome. So much of the Bill is welcome, and so many of the amendments are welcome. We have welcomed all the Minister's amendments, I believe. There is just the one sticking point left, namely, the provision in section 17. It is a very significant difficulty for us. This is a Bill that my party and I really want to support. Undoubtedly, it will result in considerable progress regarding the rights of adopted persons to know their own identity and access the sort of birth information that is routinely available to the adopted persons in other jurisdictions.

Our concern, mentioned in our pre-legislative scrutiny report, is that Ireland will remain an outlier if, through what section 17 proposes, we continue to place a condition on access to birth information, even for a small category of adopted persons. If there could be some movement on this between now and the passage of the Bill in the Seanad, it would be really welcome. I do not want to have to oppose the Bill at all because it is so welcome. I commend the Minister and his officials on the enormous progress made. As I said earlier and on Committee Stage, I am so aware of the enormous difficulties we have had in trying to get to this stage with the legislation. There have been many iterations of the Attorney Generals' advice on this over the years. There is just this one final hurdle; so many others have been cleared. While there has been so much goodwill and meeting of minds on changes that improved the Bill greatly, and while so many have had an input, including all the witnesses who gave evidence to the joint committee, particularly Professor Conor O'Mahony, and the Minster's officials and the Attorney General, there is just the one remaining sticking point. It is really a vestige of a dated culture. As the Minister put it himself, there was a "restrict, not release" culture that always saw privacy rights trumping identity rights and that saw distrust of women and children. We all know that culture should be long gone and we do not want to see any more vestiges of it in our legislation.

For us, the sticking point concerning the mandatory information session still remains. It retains too much of the past culture in the Bill. It does not fit. Given the many improvements to the Bill since we began debating it, including amendment No. 73 and those ministerial amendments we have just agreed to, section 17 will come to be seen as an outlier. Indeed, it could well form the basis of litigation by those adopted persons in that small category to which I have referred, whose birth parents, as was their right, indicated a no-contact preference. An adopted person in that scenario who does not engage in the mandatory information session will not then have access under this legislation to his or her birth information. Therefore, such adoptees may well see it as discriminatory against them. That discrimination is built into the Bill, and that is what we are objecting to. I realise we have had an opportunity to debate it; however, in light of the other significantly progressive and welcome amendments, it stands out as an obstacle to supporting the Bill in its entirety.

Photo of Holly CairnsHolly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there any chance the Minister would consider amendment No. 59?

Photo of Seán Ó FearghaílSeán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have already discussed it.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to come in at this point because Deputy Bacik used the term "outlier" in terms of the Bill.

7 o’clock

The Bill in no way makes us an outlier. We are an outlier now, and this Bill brings us into compliance with where Europe is in terms of the release of birth information and puts us far in advance of a number of European countries. A number of European countries had equally restrictive practices to the ones we are casting to history through the introduction of this legislation. It will, in every circumstance, allow for the full release of information. I wanted to make that point. We are leaving our outlier status behind through this Bill, and that is a very positive step.

Amendment agreed to.

5:57 pm

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 74:

In page 38, line 13, to delete “Agency” and substitute “Authority”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 75:

In page 43, line 24, after “to” to insert “subsection (5)and”.

This is an amendment to section 45. The section obliges a secondary information source to retain and maintain relevant records held. The amendment seeks to ensure clarity that the obligation on a secondary source to retain and maintain records should not interfere with any transfer or records anticipated under action 8 of the Government Action Plan for Survivors and Former Residents of Mother and Baby and County Home Institutions or in accordance with that body's obligations under the National Archives Act 1986. This amendment is necessary to ensure accurate information sources are clear, and even though they are to retain records, this should not stop the transfer of records in line with other obligations.

As we know, we are developing this Bill as the fastest way to deliver full access to information for adopted people, those who were boarded out and those who were subject to illegal birth registrations. We have also made it clear we want to provide for a changed landscape in terms of the collation and availability of records generally. As we know, this was set out in the action plan in terms of the idea of a national records and memorial centre. That is the long-term goal, namely, for records to be available in a place where historians can inspect relevant records and individuals can inspect their own records and we have a space where we can memorialise and learn what happened in these institutions.

As Deputies know, since our discussions on Committee Stage we brought forward an additional announcement in terms of a national records and memorial centre. We have selected the site on Sean McDermott Street. We will also consider ways in which to make this more widely available online and, potentially, to support work elsewhere. The amendment recognises the two processes that are being put in place. We are allowing for immediate access to all information now, wherever that information is held, be it in Tusla, the Adoption Authority of Ireland or somewhere else. We have a long-term goal of collation. That speaks to an issue raised by Deputies in respect of concerns about Tusla and the Adoption Authority of Ireland implementing this process. I have heard those concerns.

What we decide now does not bind us in the future. We know the fastest way to get access to information for persons who are elderly or who have waited a long time for information is to ensure they can get access to information through the sources that hold that information now. This is what the Bill provides for.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome amendments Nos. 75 and 76. They illustrate the complexity of the situation and the history that lies behind the Bill. They show why so much thought needs to be put into transferring records and the sources for records and information, given the very piecemeal history of adoption legislation and practices in Ireland.

I want to refer to the Minister's comment on my use of the term "outlier". That word was used in our pre-legislative scrutiny report. When we spoke about the mandatory information session, the committee said that in the international context, Ireland will remain an outlier with the conditional access proposed in the Bill. That was a term used in the report and that is why I used it today. It is unfortunate we could not move further, given where we are now and how much movement there has been on so much more, including in amendments Nos. 75 and 76. The fact that section 17 remains in its current form is, as I have said, out of keeping with the general spirit and tone elsewhere in the Bill and the amendments the Minister has put forward, which we have all welcomed and which have made such improvements to the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 76:

In page 44, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: “(5) Subsection (1) shall not apply to relevant records transferred by a secondary information source—
(a) in compliance with its obligations under the National Archives Act 1986, or

(b) in accordance with Action 8 of the plan known as the “Action Plan for Survivors and Former Residents of Mother and Baby and County Home Institutions.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 77:

“PART 8

AMENDMENT OF SUCCESSION ACT 1965

Definition (Part 8)

52.In this Part, “Act of 1965” means the Succession Act 1965.

Amendment of section 4A of Act of 1965

53.Section 4A of the Act of 1965 is amended— (a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “Subject to subsection (1A) and section 4B,” for “Subject to subsection (1A),”, and

(b) In subsection (6), by the insertion of “and section 4B,” after “ “In this section”.

Special provisions in relation to affected persons

54. The Act of 1965 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 4A: “4B. (1) Where, under this section, a relationship between an affected person and another person is to be deduced in accordance with this subsection, the relationship between the affected person and—
(a) his or her father and mother shall, subject to section 27A of this Act, be determined in accordance with section 3 of the Act of 1987,

and

(b) his or her social father and social mother shall, subject to section 27A of this Act, be deemed, respectively, to be the same as the relationship between the affected person and his or her father and mother,
and all other relationships shall be determined accordingly.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)—
(a) where the relationship between an affected person and another person is to be deduced in accordance with that subsection, this Act shall be construed as follows—
(i) a reference, other than in section 4A, to the father of an affected person shall be construed as including a reference to both the father and the social father of the affected person,

(ii) a reference, other than in section 4A, to the mother of an affected person shall be construed as including a reference to both the mother and the social mother of the affected person,

(iii) a reference to the parent of an affected person shall be construed as including a reference to both the parent and the social parent of the affected person,

(iv) a reference to the brother of an affected person shall be construed as including a reference to both the brother of the affected person and a person who is determined in accordance with subsection (1) to have the same relationship with the affected person as a brother of the affected person

(v) a reference to the sister of an affected person shall be construed as including a reference to both the sister of the affected person and a person who is determined in accordance with subsection (1) to have the same relationship with the affected person as a sister of the affected person,

(vi) a reference to the child of a person shall be construed as including a reference to both the child of the person and an affected person in relation to whom the person is a social parent, and

(vii) a reference to the issue of a person shall be construed as including a reference to both the issue of the person and a person who is determined in accordance with subsection (1) to have the same relationship with the person as the issue of the person, and
(b) for the purposes of section 71, an affected person shall be deemed to have the same blood relationship with his or her social parent as he or she would have were the social parent his or her parent.
(3) Where—
(a) an order under section 117 or 121, or

(b) a provision to a person out of the estate of a testator pursuant to an order under section 117 or 121 or in connection with proceedings or a claim under such section or sections,
was made before the date on which this subsection comes into operation—
(i) an affected person in whose interest the order, or to whom the provision, was made and in relation to whom the testator concerned was a social parent shall be treated as if the relationship between him or her and the testator was deduced in accordance with subsection (1), and

(ii) the order or provision shall not be rendered invalid by reason of the fact that the testator was the social parent, and not the parent, of any affected person.
(4) The taking, before the date on which this subsection comes into operation, by—
(a) the spouse of a testator of the share of the testator’s estate referred to in section 111(2),or

(b) the civil partner of a testator of the share of the testator’s estate referred to in section 111A(2),
shall not be rendered invalid by reason of the fact that the testator concerned was the social parent, and not the parent, of a person.

(5) Where, in the distribution of the estate of an intestate—
(a) a person, before the date on which this subsection comes into operation, took the estate or a share of the estate, and

(b) at the time of such taking—
(i) the person did not have the relationship with the intestate that would have entitled him or her under Part VI to the taking, but

(ii) the person would have had such a relationship with the intestate had the relationship been deduced in accordance with subsection (1),
the taking of the estate or share of the estate, as the case may be, by the person shall not be rendered invalid by reason of the fact that the person did not have the relationship referred to in paragraph (b)(i).

(6) This subsection applies where—
(a) an intestate dies before the date on which subsection (7) comes into operation, and

(b) administration of the estate of the intestate has been granted on or before the relevant date.
(7) Where—
(a) subsection (6) applies and,

(b) by the date on which this subsection comes into operation, the affected person concerned has not taken the estate or a share of the estate of the intestate to which he or she would be entitled were his relationship with the intestate deduced in accordance with subsection (1),
for the purposes of the distribution under Part VI of the part of the estate which has not yet been taken by any person, the relationship between an affected person and the intestate, and all other relationships, shall be deduced in accordance with subsection (1).

(8) Where—
(a) an intestate dies before the date on which this subsection comes into operation, and

(b) administration of the estate of the intestate is granted after the relevant date,
for the purposes of the distribution under Part VI of the estate of the intestate, the relationship between an affected person and the intestate concerned, and all other relationships, shall be deduced in accordance with subsection (1).

(9) This subsection applies where—
(a) a testator dies before the date on which this subsection comes into operation, and

(b) representation of the testator’s estate is taken out after the relevant date.
(10) Where subsection (9) applies—
(a) for the purposes of sections 111 and 111A, the relationship between the testator and an affected person, and all other shall be deduced in accordance with subsection (1),

(b) where the effect of paragraph (a) is that the share of the estate of the testator to which the spouse or civil partner, as the case may be, of the testator is entitled as a legal right is different to the share to which he or she would have been entitled had the paragraph not applied, section 115(4) shall apply as if the words 'or one year from the date on which section 4B(10) comes into operation,' were substituted for 'or one year from the first taking out of representation of the deceased’s estate,' and

(c) for the purposes of section 117—
(i) the relationship between an affected person and the testator, and all other relationships, shall be deduced in accordance with subsection (1), and

(ii) where an affected person, pursuant to subparagraph (i), makes an application under section 117(1), section 117(6) shall apply as if the words 'from the date on which section 4B(10) comes into operation' were substituted for 'from the first taking out of representation of the deceased’s estate'.
(11) For the purposes of this Act, a person is an affected person where—
(a) as a result of the giving of information that was false or misleading, the name of a person other than his or her mother was entered in the register of births as his or her mother, and

(b) the person named as mother and, if applicable, father in the entry assumed the role of a parent in relation to him or her and treated him or her as her or their lawful child, whether or not the entry has been corrected or cancelled pursuant to Part 3B or section 63, 64 or 65 of the Act of 2004.
(12) In this section—
'register of births' means a register of births maintained by An tArd-Chláraitheoir under section 13(1)(a) of the Civil Registration Act 2004, as amended, or under the repealed enactments (within the meaning of that Act);

'relevant date' means the 26th day of April 2022;

'social father' means, in relation to an affected person, the man named in the entry in the register of births referred to in subsection (11) as his or her father;

'social mother' means, in relation to an affected person, the woman named in the entry in the register of births referred to in subsection (11) as his or her mother;

'social parent' means, in relation to an affected person, his or her social father or social mother.”.


Amendment of section 68 of Act of 1965

55. Section 68 of the Act of 1965 is amended— (a) by the designation of the section as subsection (1),

(b) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “Subject to this section, if an intestate dies” for “If an intestate dies”, and

(c) by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (1):
“(2) If an intestate who is an affected person dies leaving neither spouse nor civil partner nor issue, his or her estate shall be distributed between each person who is his or her surviving parent in equal shares, but, if only one parent survives, that parent shall take the whole estate.

(3) Where subsection (2) applies, and a surviving parent is both the father and the social father (within the meaning of section 4B) of the intestate concerned, the estate of the intestate shall be distributed between him and the other surviving parents in equal shares, but, if he is the only surviving parent, he shall take the whole estate.”.


Share of relatives: special provision

56.The Act of 1965 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 69: “69A.Where, in the application of section 4B to any provision of this Part, the same person would be entitled to take, in relation to the estate of an intestate—
(a) a share by virtue of a relationship with the intestate deduced in accordance with a determination under paragraph (a) of section 4B(1), and

(b) a share by virtue of a relationship with the intestate deduced in accordance with a determination under paragraph (b) of section 4B(1),
the person—
(i) shall take only one of the shares in the estate referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b), and

(ii) may elect to take either the share referred to in paragraph (a) or the share referred to in paragraph (b).”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 78:

In page 57, lines 15 and 16, to delete all words from and including “The” in line 15 down to and including line 16 and substitute the following: “The Minister shall, not later than 2 years after the coming into operation of this section, commence a review of the operation of this Act, other than Parts 8and 9.”.

This is something we discussed towards the end of our lengthy committee sessions and it was something on which I indicated I would seek to table an amendment under the original Bill. As Deputies know, most Bills now have a review clause whereby they will be reviewed in terms of their actions within a specific period of time. Under the initial legislation, the proposal was for a review within four years.

Deputy Funchion brought forward an amendment proposing the period be one year. I said that I did not think one year was enough time to examine the overall operation of the legislation. Therefore, I am bringing forward what I hope will be an agreeable compromise to review the legislation at the two-year point. This will give sufficient time for it to be implemented and qualitative and quantitative data to be collected to make sure the review can be meaningful. It will take time for the process to scale up. There is a risk that in doing a review too early, potential issues and flaws would not yet have materialised. Two years is a good timeframe at which to carry out a review. That is the nature of this amendment.

Photo of Kathleen FunchionKathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the amendment. As the Minister said, we discussed this towards the end of the committee meetings and everybody agreed four years was too long. One year was probably too short, and on reflection two years is happy compromise.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 79:

In page 58, line 4, to delete “Co. Galway” and substitute “Galway”.

These are a number of technical amendments but are related to the Schedule. The Schedule, as we know, lists certain institutions and the way in which they were formatted had caused a certain amount of confusion in respect of spacing and commas. For the point of clarity, we are bringing forward a set of amendments to ensure those institutions listed are properly described and individualised.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 80:

In page 58, to delete lines 5 to 9 and substitute the following: “Bessborough Mother and Baby Home, Cork

Manor House, Castlepollard, Westmeath

Sean Ross Abbey, Tipperary

Árd Mhuire, Dunboyne, Meath”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 81:

In page 58, line 14, to delete “Co. Donegal” and substitute “Donegal”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 82:

In page 58, line 15, to delete “Co. Clare” and substitute “Clare”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 83:

In page 58, line 21, to delete “Ennis” and substitute “Ennis, Clare”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 84:

In page 58, to delete line 22 and substitute the following: “Cork County Home and District/ St Finbarr’s Hospital”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Roderic O'GormanRoderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 85:

In page 58, to delete line 27 and substitute the following:
“Dublin Union/St Kevin’s Institution”.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill received for final consideration.

Question put: "That the Bill do now pass."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 77; Níl, 54; Staon, 0.


Tellers: Tá, Deputies Jack Chambers and Brendan Griffin; Níl, Deputies Kathleen Funchion and Holly Cairns.

Colm Brophy, James Browne, Richard Bruton, Colm Burke, Mary Butler, Thomas Byrne, Jackie Cahill, Seán Canney, Ciarán Cannon, Joe Carey, Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, Jack Chambers, Niall Collins, Patrick Costello, Barry Cowen, Michael Creed, Cathal Crowe, Cormac Devlin, Alan Dillon, Stephen Donnelly, Francis Noel Duffy, Bernard Durkan, Damien English, Alan Farrell, Frank Feighan, Peter Fitzpatrick, Joe Flaherty, Charles Flanagan, Seán Fleming, Norma Foley, Noel Grealish, Brendan Griffin, Seán Haughey, Emer Higgins, Heather Humphreys, John Lahart, James Lawless, Brian Leddin, Michael Lowry, Josepha Madigan, Catherine Martin, Micheál Martin, Steven Matthews, Helen McEntee, Michael McGrath, John McGuinness, Joe McHugh, Michael McNamara, Aindrias Moynihan, Michael Moynihan, Jennifer Murnane O'Connor, Verona Murphy, Denis Naughten, Hildegarde Naughton, Malcolm Noonan, Darragh O'Brien, Joe O'Brien, Jim O'Callaghan, James O'Connor, Willie O'Dea, Kieran O'Donnell, Patrick O'Donovan, Fergus O'Dowd, Roderic O'Gorman, Christopher O'Sullivan, Pádraig O'Sullivan, Marc Ó Cathasaigh, Éamon Ó Cuív, Anne Rabbitte, Neale Richmond, Michael Ring, Eamon Ryan, Matt Shanahan, Brendan Smith, Niamh Smyth, Ossian Smyth, David Stanton.

Níl

Chris Andrews, Ivana Bacik, Mick Barry, Richard Boyd Barrett, John Brady, Martin Browne, Pat Buckley, Holly Cairns, Matt Carthy, Sorca Clarke, Michael Collins, Catherine Connolly, Réada Cronin, Seán Crowe, Pa Daly, Pearse Doherty, Paul Donnelly, Dessie Ellis, Mairead Farrell, Kathleen Funchion, Gary Gannon, Thomas Gould, Johnny Guirke, Danny Healy-Rae, Michael Healy-Rae, Brendan Howlin, Martin Kenny, Claire Kerrane, Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, Mattie McGrath, Denise Mitchell, Imelda Munster, Catherine Murphy, Paul Murphy, Johnny Mythen, Gerald Nash, Carol Nolan, Cian O'Callaghan, Richard O'Donoghue, Louise O'Reilly, Darren O'Rourke, Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire, Ruairi Ó Murchú, Aengus Ó Snodaigh, Maurice Quinlivan, Patricia Ryan, Seán Sherlock, Róisín Shortall, Duncan Smith, Brian Stanley, Peadar Tóibín, Pauline Tully, Mark Ward, Jennifer Whitmore.

Question declared carried.