Annie Hoey (Labour) | Oireachtas source

The Labour Party's substantive amendment is amendment No. 68 which Senator Higgins mentioned. That will be dealt with separately. We tabled amendments Nos. 33 to 40, inclusive, which precede amendment No. 68 which is the substantive amendment. These deal with the mandatory information session which is the big sticking point for the Labour Party. We are disappointed that we did not see progress made on this in the Dáil. My colleague, Deputy Bacik, had a full debate with the Minister on Committee Stage and on the floor of the Dáil. I want to acknowledge how much progress was made on other issues on Committee Stage and in the Dáil. We all appreciate the improvements that have been made to the Bill but this is still a difficult area for us and for those seeking information. It means that access to birth information remains conditional in certain cases on the holding of this information session.

The Minister has spoken at the committee and in the Dáil of the need to balance information rights and privacy rights but we feel the retention of the mandatory information session means that privacy rights continue to trump identity rights. During pre-legislative scrutiny the committee unanimously recommended an alternative to a mandatory information session as a safeguard to ensure the balance of rights would be to send an appropriate statement by registered post. Amendment No. 68 crafts a mechanism whereby such a statement could be sent by the authority setting out the relevant matters in writing to a person seeking information. We believe this would be a sufficient safeguard along with other safeguards in the legislation such as the information campaign, the contact preference register and the age limit to ensure that these constitutional rights are balanced. We think it would be a more practical mechanism because it would ensure that there could be no dispute as to what was said and whether a Zoom call or another type of meeting had in fact taken place. It would also show trust in the people who were seeking this information that they would receive this statement and that it would be sufficient.

We looked at section 17 to see what the Government proposes as a safeguard.The information session need not be in one place, but it requires that each participant be able directly or by means of electronic communications technology to speak and to be heard by the other participants. Section 17(2) sets out the relevant information about which the designated person is to inform the adopted person seeking the information.

We are not entirely clear why this information could not be simply set out in a written statement and be sent by registered post so that there is proof that it has been received, particularly when section 17(4) requires the designated person, on completion of the information session, to confirm that it has taken place and to provide notification. As the Government has already proposed a mechanism for a written statement, I do not understand why we do not just bypass the mandatory information session and bypass this condition on access of information as the committee recommended. We should end this rather paternalistic approach that requires an information session and instead simply send it by registered post. We do this with summonses and other important legal documents. I believe there is general cross-party agreement that this would be a far preferable method of informing somebody and it would mean that there would be no condition on access.

I ask for clarification on a point. What happens if adopted persons will not take the Zoom call or meet the designated person? My understanding is that they would not get access to information. I believe that they would need to go through a request via GDPR. I ask the Minister to verify that. If it is the case, it seems extremely onerous that they would need to use separate legislation to access their information. This is a condition upon access to information which I believe is against the spirit of the Bill. Otherwise, the provisions of the Bill are very inclusive. We would like to see a change to the stated patriarchal culture. We think the required information session is a hangover of that. Amendment No. 68 is the substantive piece. There was cross-party agreement on this during the pre-legislative scrutiny and in the Dáil. We think it is patriarchal and unnecessary. If it is good enough for court summonses and other legal requirements, I do not understand why this information needs to be by a phone call or in-person as opposed to by registered post.