Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will be frank with the Minister; that is completely wrong. It is the same argument I had back in 2017 when I listened to the exact same discussions about birth certificates. I sat in ministerial offices hearing advice from Ministers. This was back when there was the assumption of a preference for privacy versus identity, with the assumption being made wrongly and, in fact, interfering with private life. This Bill wrongly assumes that someone who has made inquiries or visited somebody does not want their name released. It literally legislatively states that the name on that record would not be released at that point. That was the assumption back in the early iterations of this Bill in the previous Oireachtas which I thought we had moved past.

I listened to those exact same arguments at that time and we pointed out that it was wrong. It was found to be wrong and incompatible with GDPR. Measures needed to be put in place afterwards. We went through all these issues, as well as the fact that it needs to be treated on an individual case-by-case basis rather than making a blanket assumption. It is not simply about the right to identity. That is one part of this but there is also a person's right to personal information and subject access requests, for example. There is the full spectrum of what that covers. This is a line in the Bill which is at odds with what people are entitled to. It also makes assumptions about the other person. I have enormous respect for the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and the Attorney General but in this area the advice has often been slow to reflect general data protection regulations. In respect of this matter, on at least three occasions I have been told things were not possible and it subsequently emerged that they were.

I will press one of the amendments. I will not press the deletion amendment. I urge the Minister to examine that again because I think it is a fundamental mistake and inconsistent with certain rights. The State is, in fact, prohibiting something. What if someone visited 20 times and asked for the person to be told they visited or inquired? Under the Bill they still cannot have that information shared unless they have a letter or other correspondence they submitted, which they may have, but they may have just inquired multiple times and requested it. They may not have sent in a letter. People should not need to jump through hoops to find each other.

With respect, the tracing service is a separate piece. This relates to information. It is not solely about identity; that is the birth certificates. It relates to information. Somebody visiting a person or inquiring about a person is information relevant to that person. To prohibit in legislation the name of the visiting person from being released as part of a record of the fact of them having visited the person is not appropriate and is simply wrong.

I have other matters to deal with because this is a very large grouping. Amendment No. 56 would delete the words “to the extent that it is practicable to do so” in respect of providing the relevant person with a copy of the records. The concern relates to how the term "practicable to do so" might be interpreted. I understand there are established uses of the word "practicable", but I would be concerned that this needs to be copper-fastened to ensure that "practicable to do so" does not become "might be quite difficult and would require resources". We cannot have someone saying, "We may not have access to those records and we will have to track them down somewhere because they were put in another location." We need to be clear on how the term “to the extent that it is practicable to do so” is to be interpreted. We need to ensure that time or financial resource constraints are not considered sufficient grounds for determining that an action is not practicable.

Amendment No. 57 seeks to insert the words “the personal data of the relevant person”. That just gives a slightly wider frame of personal data and puts it in line with the GDPR framework of personal data of the relevant person.

Amendment No. 58 inserts a requirement to "provide the relevant person with a summary of all relevant records it holds, including information to which the application does not relate, and shall offer to supply the relevant person with the additional records upon request". If they require something, they should get the specific thing requested but they should also be told the authority also has records A, B, C, and D. That would again prompt the person that they have the right to apply for those records. For example, in certain cases people believed each other to be dead. A person may be inquiring about something without knowing that they have a sibling who is alive. We should be letting people know that there are other relevant records. I am not suggesting that all those records would be released when a single record is requested but that people should be informed that these records exist and they are entitled to them. When people are making an inquiry, it is fishing in the dark. They do not always know what questions to ask. The purpose of the amendment is to avoid a minimalist interpretation and to provide people with the breadcrumbs they might need to seek out additional records.

Section 11(2)(b) states "may provide the relevant person with a statement setting out the early life information, care information or incorrect birth registration information to which the application relates". Amendment No. 59 proposes that it "shall" provide the relevant person with such a statement.

Amendment No. 61 relates to page 22, line 14. Again, it would require that the authority "shall" provide the relevant person with a statement.In both these cases, the amendment is simply stating the authority "shall" rather than "may" provide the person with a statement.