Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Fair enough. There will probably have to be a bit of back and forth because that clump actually deals with quite different topics. That is why I was surprised by the grouping.

In terms of amendment No. 9, at the moment under subsection (f) it refers to "information on any medical treatments, procedures or vaccinations administered to him or her." I am specifying that it should refer to “medical information, including” information on any medical treatments. It is just to get that wider definition of "medical information". I know at a later stage, the Minister defines medical information as "relating to his or her ... history" but in this section, in terms of early life information, I feel that medical information should be double referenced. That is more of a technical issue so that it does not fall between the gaps and we do not end up with a narrow version of medical information.

There are a couple of details in respect of amendment No. 10 that I think are really important. One is this idea of the "genetic relative". The Bill states:

(a) his or her mother or father,

(b) a child or parent of his or her mother or father,

(c) a sibling ... whether the relationship is of the whole blood or half blood, or

(d) a person to whom, but for the adoption of any person, paragraph (b)or (c)would apply;

Again, why are we narrowing this to "genetic"? We have the Children and Family Relationships Bill 2015, which recognises that there are different kinds of family relationships. There could be people who have married into a family, for example. There may be people who may not be blood relatives but are effectively relatives of a person and who are the relevant people. Given that we have the Children and Family Relationships Bill 2015 and we have moved on from that definition, I am concerned about going back to a kind of genetic definition of relatives in this regard. I know maybe there is a relevance for this with regard to the medical information side but in general, I think there is a narrowing of that definition of relative. I am uneasy about it. It also could end up excluding persons. It may be that it is being inserted with regard to how it may relate to medical records. That might have been what was in mind but it is nonetheless kind of the version of relatives that is going in. There is another in terms of a qualified relative, which I also have problems with, that comes in another later section of the Bill. However, I am concerned that this could actually end up excluding other persons who are relatives. It is out of sync with where we are in society and out of sync even with the tone of the Children and Family Relationships Bill 2015.

Amendment No. 11, and this will be one of the things that is most important for somebody in his or her record, relates to information about persons who may have inquired about someone when he or she was in an institution. One can imagine looking back and trying to figure out one's own early life, and how important it would be to see a record that said somebody visited or inquired. I think it is unacceptably narrow. This is probably one of the clauses I feel most strongly about in the Bill. I cannot imagine what it is to look at a record and see that somebody called, asked or inquired and not be able to find out who they were. Three amendments deal with this, namely, amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13.

The Bill at the moment states, "whether any person, being a parent or other genetic relative of him or her, visited or inquired ..." Again, perhaps it was not a relative by blood who inquired but another relative or somebody else who was not in that blood or half blood framing. Amendment No. 11 would insert “or any other person”. Maybe it was a teacher who inquired about what happened. Maybe it was a person who cared or a friend who inquired. Maybe the person was, in fact, a partner or former partner who may not be a relative, or who may have been a former partner or new partner of a person's mother, for example. There are lots of people but it is this idea of narrowing. Why are we narrowing who gets reported in terms of having inquired about or visited a person? Again, I do not see why that is being narrowed. The wording of "any person, being a parent or other genetic relative" immediately shrinks what visits or inquiries are reported on.

The next section about which I am concerned is the deletion or replacement of the phrase "but does not include the name of the other person." I am suggesting in amendments Nos. 12 and 13 that the Bill either would say, “which shall include the name of the other person where that is known,” or else just delete the phrase that says, "but does not include the name of the other person." Again, this is that same narrow presumption. A person will get told in that case, even under the Bill as it is, that his or her father or sister called 15 times to the institution to try to inquire, but the person will not be told his or her sister or father's name. Again, these are not persons who have opted out based on even a no-contact preference. This does not even reference the no-contact preference in the register. This basically assumes that somebody who has inquired about a person or visited that person in an institution will not want his or her name shared, and that takes precedence over the person knowing he or she was visited or inquired about, in this case by a parent or genetic relative, or, if I have it in the wider definition, which I feel it should be, any person.Perhaps it is a lingering from the old version of the legislation that needs to be untangled but given the changes that have taken place in other parts of the legislation and that we are now, as the Minister described it, going with this presumption of information, it seems like an anomaly and a double restriction that is embedded into finding out who cared and who inquired about the person.

I will speak again on the other amendments. I am not closing the debate.