Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I join others in welcoming the Minister to the House and the opportunity to discuss and debate these issues. It is a very welcome step that we are looking to legislate on the access to information for adopted persons, on the exchange of information and for better tracing mechanisms. I accept and acknowledge this aspect.

I will move on to the areas of concern, some of which the Minister has already acknowledged. The Minister gave some history of the changing nature of adoption in the State, but there is another aspect to the history of adoption in the State that was, perhaps, not as acknowledged. I know we will have a chance to discuss it later today and it is important. It concerns the aspect of the history of adoption in the forced adoptions and the experience of adoption under great duress. We know of the almost 2,000 children who were adopted to the United States of America. We know of adoptions that took place when women were in situations, effectively, of forced detention. The very difficult and problematic history of adoption needs to be acknowledged. Today, we are hearing discussion about balance and we need to acknowledge that there has been a deep imbalance done by the State. The rights of the adopted children and their birth parents have often been very low in the balance of concern of the State and of those involved in adoption in the past. When we talk about balancing the two elements it is important to recognise that both have, in the past, been subservient to other concerns. This is a key factor when we look at the context.The Minister has acknowledged that there are concerns about the question of compelling reasons and the question of clarity around that. I acknowledge that Senators Ruane and Kelleher share many of the concerns I mentioned. We may table amendments on later Stages so I hope we can work with the Minister on that. In respect of compelling reasons, well-being and life and health, it has been well enunciated by Senator Warfield that there are compelling reasons and concerns for adopted persons, indeed issues of life and death, where they may wish to be able to access information about their birth and heritage.

I will focus on the issue the Minister identified as being problematic, for which I thank her. This is the question of the no-contact undertaking which is there as a requirement at the moment. It is a matter of great concern. We know that persons have a right to their identity. If we want a recent mandate, we passed a referendum in this State which affirmed the rights of the child and under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the right to identity is a key part of that. An inherent part of that right to identity is the knowledge of one's past and family history. I believe section 41 severely challenges and undermines that right. It shows disrespect to adopted persons and places them in a different situation. No other group of citizens in the State must sign disclaimers, waivers and undertakings to access essential information such as their birth certificates. It is completely out of line with this. I know this issue has been of concern at UN level where the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, CEDAW, has asked the Irish State to justify that element in the proposed Bill which sought required surviving adoptees to sign a statutory declaration undertaking not to contact their biological mothers as a condition for gaining access. This was a concern at CEDAW and, in response, the State again spoke about the right to privacy.

Some have challenged that there is a blurring of the line between privacy and secrecy. There is, of course, the right to a private life on the part of a person seeking information. It seems extraordinary that somebody would be asked to sign and waive away their right to contact a parent as a default mechanism. Surely this is an interference in the private life of the individual who has been adopted. We do not interfere in the relationships between others. If there are situations of unwanted contact, we have mechanisms such as our legislation in areas such as harassment. For example, we have barring orders. We spoke about the presumption of information but what we are seeing here is people being forced to choose between identity and information. People who in many cases have endured great cruelty from this State are being asked to choose between their right to identity and relationship and their right to information alone. It is unacceptable. We need to be very clear that those who are adopted are not supplicants or applicants to the State. They are not looking for charity. In many cases, they have experienced what charity amounted to in this State in the past in its religious and other institutions. They are looking for justice and their proper rights on the same basis as any other citizen. That is what we need to grant them. I urge the Minister to reform this area on Committee Stage. We will certainly look to support her if she has amendments to that effect.

Another point that relates to this is the double clause. We already have a provision, which is a problematic one, that allows for compelling reasons. It allows an individual to say that they have reasons they do not want their contact details shared. Why do we have that as one bar and the no-contact clause? Another problem with the no-contact clause, which also relates to the concerns regarding the transfer of the register, is the fact that where somebody has given no indication that they want contact, the assumption is that the no-contact clause would be used in that condition. We know there are situations where women were told their children were dead. There are many original birth mothers in the State who do not know whether their children are alive or adopted, who may not be in contact with the State on an ongoing basis and who have been given false information. These issues arise so there is a real concern about that default presumption.

There is also concern around the lack of original copies in terms of documentation. It is one thing to be able to view one's documentation but to be able obtain original copies, which is important for people as they move through their lives, is another thing. If they make their lives in a new country, they should have original and appropriate documentation and be able to use that on the birth certificate they recognise as their own. An edited document from a statutory agency is not the same thing, so I hope the Minister also addresses that concern. The question is not for those who have been through the adoption system in Ireland to prove their trustworthiness. We need to move away from the stigma that has been associated with this area-----