Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is a very large group and they are quite different topics.

I find the Minister's response unacceptable. The definition of "genetic relative", and the Minister did not address the question, includes full-blood or half-blood relative. That is not a very wide definition. I do not understand why there is still this lingering theme of how much it can be shut down. It is still there in that definition of "genetic relative". It is the sibling, uncle, aunt or first cousin of his or her mother or father. Is a cousin of the relevant person included, who is clearly related to the person? That is not clear. If it is a first cousin of the relevant person or if it is a first cousin who is an adopted first cousin who is not, in fact, a blood relative, are they covered?

As the Minister pointed out, genetic relative is not simply related to the medical area. It is being used in defining whether one gets told that somebody inquired. If a non-blood relative, who is not full-blood or half-blood, inquired, is it not worth informing somebody of that? The current framing is "a sibling, uncle, aunt or first-cousin of his or her mother or father, whether the relationship is of the whole blood or half blood" so it is not a cousin of the relevant person. That person cannot inquire. All these things might seem broad in the generality, but when the relevant person is looking at a record and if somebody has inquired about the relevant person, the relevant person perhaps would not be told, if that person was just a cousin, that the cousin had inquired about him or her. That is how it reads. One would not be told if another person had inquired. In fact, under the legislation the relevant person will not even be told if another person who is not related to him or her had inquired, even if the person might have inquired multiple times. Perhaps the person came 20 times to ask, and that will not be in the records the relevant person will get about his or her early life. The person might have visited the relevant person ten times and it will not be in the early records. I do not understand why. I do not know why we are trying to narrow it down. That is even leaving aside the releasing of the name. It is just being told one was visited or inquired about.

Then there is the Minister's point about these presumptions and the balancing act because there is another provision. We have been told there is information and tracing. They are separate. This is about information. Frankly, if somebody has inquired about or visited the relevant person, that is information that is relevant to the relevant person. Under a subject access request, one would be entitled to that information so I do not understand why this is in the Bill. I ask the House to bear in mind that one of my amendments simply deletes that. One amendment provides that one shall have the name but another amendment simply deletes what is a legislative prohibition on sharing the name, but does not include the name of the other person. This is saying that early life information will not include the name of the other person. If the Minister wants to leave it in a space where it will be determined in a balancing act, then he should simply remove that phrase and let it be determined on the balancing act in respect of each individual query. I have an amendment with provides that one shall be entitled to it. If that is too far, the in-between and balancing thing to do is to not have a prohibition and not have a mandatory entitlement. I have suggested an entitlement and the Bill as it is suggests a prohibition. I would remove reference to how the name of the other person would be treated altogether. That is the in-between piece which allows relevant laws, including general data protection regulation, GDPR, laws, to be applied. Otherwise, we are creating something that is in tension with that.