Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

On amendment No. 55, what the Minister described is a previous amendment of mine, where I sought to include and name medical information within the definition of "early life information". That is not what amendment No. 55 would do. As the Minister has said, he has chosen to list medical information separately in the definitions and it is not encompassed within the definitions of either "care information" or "early life information". As he has chosen to treat it separately, it is important that it be listed as one of the areas where a relevant body might provide information. Currently, it is not.Section 11 reads:

A relevant person who has attained the age of 18 years may apply in writing to a relevant body for the provision by the relevant body to him or her of any or all of the following that is held by the relevant body and that relates to him or her: (a) early life information;

(b) care information;

(c) incorrect birth registration information.

This does not include medical information, which is defined as being a separate category. I am concerned by this anomaly. I cited the example of an earlier amendment through which I sought to address this issue by having medical information named as a subsection within the early life paragraph. Given that it is a stand-alone category of information, however, it is important that it be included as one of the kinds of information for which a person can apply to a relevant body.

Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 have to do with “may” and “shall” and amendment No. 64 relates to “without delay”. The Minister might comment on the concerns about an excessively onerous process.

Amendment No. 65 is important and relates to a point that Senator Ruane has discussed, namely, an adoptive parent being able to apply on behalf of a child who is not yet 16 years of age for the provision of the relevant medical information. Section 15 deals with medical information, so the matter is dealt with separately to section 11. It is important that the adoptive parent of a child be able to apply for information on behalf of that child. Many adoptive parents have been supportive of, and advocates for, their children in accessing the relevant information. This is what amendment No. 65 addresses. It reads: "The adoptive parent of a child who has not attained the age of 16 years may apply in writing to the Authority for the provision by it to him or her of medical information". This could be significant and relevant medical information for health decisions in respect of that child.

Amendment No. 66 is another instance where I seek to substitute “shall” for “may”. The Minister might address this point. If it is not always going to be possible, why not use “shall” with a caveat rather than “may” with its implication of “may not”?