David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Like Senator Bacik, I welcome the Minister. I thank her for her detailed analysis of the Bill and her willingness to extend the time for debate. She has shown quite a lot of flexibility and there appear to be a number of amendments in the pipeline, which is very welcome. Regarding the names she provided in respect of the entities from which the State obtained records - St. Patrick's Guild, the Bessborough mother and baby home, Sean Ross Abbey, the Tuam mother and child home - I must say, what a list of infamy.I understand the Minster says she will bring all records under the National Archives, presumably that includes the existing national adoption register. Nothing will be excluded, nothing will be shredded or got rid of, because it seemed to me there was something of a grey line there where she said that we would not transfer everything because it would be cumbersome and difficult.

Suppose someone breaks the agreement, is there any penalty? I did not see one. What happens to them? On the compelling reason, is it really the case that it would have to be a threat to life? Envisaging the actual death of the person is a very high bar to put in place.

There are a number of principles which should be adopted. Firstly, no adopted person should be asked to sign a statutory declaration before being allowed access to medical information. Of course it should be given, it is vital. This kind of thing is so important for medical treatment. All files relating to adopted people should not be given to Tusla but to an objective organisation so that it can be maintained.

I wish to put a couple of voices on the record, those of people who have been in this situation. I was contacted by a woman who said that if the Bill is enacted in its present form it would lead to further stigmatisation and so on. She said:

"My own husband's mother was 14 years old having him and she was made to give him up for adoption. She has no recollection of signing adoption papers and at 14 years how can one sign a legal document without a guardian?"

That is a very good question. At age 14, how can one possibly be assumed to have the legal capacity to do this?

On the removal of the proposed mechanism to provide statements drafted by Tusla in lieu of copies of original records, this is actual personal information. Why should third parties go trawling through someone else's personal information and then give them a type of digest form?

I have another very moving letter but I do not have time to put it all on the record. It is from the founder of the Irish First Mothers group. This is a very important group of people. Her first child was born in April 1974, and she spent four months in the Good Shepherd convent. She was aged 19. She nursed her child for seven days before the child was taken from her.

I have had contact from Pact. It welcomes the Bill, by and large, but it is concerned about the closing down of the various agencies. There are six of them: Here2Help, Cúnamh, Clarecare, St. Brigid's, St. Mura's and Barnardos. It would be a pity if they were denied a role in this area. The removal of the services provided by these accredited agencies would cause uncertainty to the added waiting time of adopted persons, birth relatives and adoptive parents. Receipt of birth information, undergoing tracing, having contacted birth relatives can be a very emotive journey. Adoptive parents already have a relationship with these agencies and this will now be interrupted. That could be emotionally disturbing for them.

There will be a cut in adoption services when demand is likely to increase. We have heard about the Tusla adoption service. There are questions about Tusla, and it is already overstretched and under-resourced. Tusla has not given assurances that future information and tracing services will be adequately resourced. It will be the sole provider of adoption information and tracing services with the loss of considerable expertise and this will lead to a longer waiting time. Information and tracing services will no longer be subject to regulation by the Adoption Authority of Ireland.

The required signing of the undertaking not to contact the parent was discussed on Committee Stage, as the Minister knows. The requirement to sign a declaration was first introduced by the then Minister, James Reilly, in 2015. It was roundly criticised by 1,400 members of the Adoption Rights Alliance and by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children. It said that it could find no convincing reason for the inclusion of a statutory declaration in the Bill. Here we have authoratitive voices saying there is no reason for such an inclusion. In any case, birth certificates are already public records. This is the only group of people which is required to sign such a declaration. People from the diaspora looking to find their genealogical background do not have to sign a declaration saying they will not contact anyone.