Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I accept that matters have moved on with regard to the provisions, but I was here in 2017. I want to acknowledge former Senator Bacik, who, along with me and a number of others, spent many hours with the then Minister. We were told at that time that a veto was required by the Constitution. We were emphatically told that the Constitution interpretation of privacy at that time, which, again, we argued was not even consistent with the right to the private life of a person, was of a desire for the non-sharing of information on the part of a parent. There was a framing of two rights versus another when, in fact, there was a question of the right of privacy being quite nuanced and the right to private life actually being an across the board consideration on the question of identity. There was an undervaluing of the provisions in respect of the changes that came about through the insertion of the rights of the child into the Constitution. There was an undervaluing of the obligations in terms of the GDPR in European law in respect of the seeking of rights. I appreciate that the Minister set out that the GDPR rights will still be there, but that will be subject to an individualised balancing in each case.

I understand that the Minister feels this has moved to where it can. I urge him to consider that suite of proposals that have been put forward by others, however, including the committee and ourselves, in respect of other ways to address that concern and in particular, to look at the issue of birth certificates. It is one thing in terms of birth information, but that differential treatment of adopted persons in terms of birth certificates gives rise to a particular concern.I have these concerns. I say this not to dismiss, but we were told in 2017 that, by looking for any requirement for birth certificates or any non-assumption of veto, we were delaying the benign purposes of the legislation. At the time, it was woefully inadequate legislation. As such, I will not apologise for seeking better. Even at this late stage, we can do better.

Contact is different than information. The assumption built into the Bill is that there is a desire for contact on the part of the adopted person, which is why that person needs to be informed that people do not want to hear from him or her. Instead, general information could be given to all persons and they could be told that, if they were thinking of contacting people, there was a contact preference register or a tracing service. They could be directed to that separate suite of provisions in this way instead of attaching something on tracing and contact preferences to an information provision. Those are the two parts. It would be good to inform persons that there was a contact preference register and that, if they were thinking about trying to make contact, they could check it, but a large number of adopted people just want to get their birth certificates and do not want to contact anyone. They will not be given that option, though. It may not be appropriate for the information on contact preferences to be provided at the point where persons are simply accessing their birth certificates. Instead, such information and balancing might be provided in a relevant way when persons are considering making contact.

The Minister addressed a number of the other issues that I had highlighted. Our amendment is wide. When a relevant record is not found, for example, a birth certificate, we suggest a strong measure, that being a seizure and immediate investigation. If the Minister does not wish to accept this, I encourage him to table something on Report Stage. If people are being told that their records no longer exist, there needs to be some provision whereby the State at least recognises a pattern. For example, if a particular adoption agency or relevant authority is consistently telling people that such records are not available, there needs to be some follow-up as opposed to each individual just getting an email to that effect. The Minister stated that a large volume of work needed to be done. My concern is that, in that large volume, evasions and loopholes will be created whereby, if there is a pattern of records not being available in a particular situation, it might not get identified. We suggested that it would require an investigation in almost every instance. If the Minister cannot accept that, then he should consider whether there needs to be some other mechanism to flag if there have been multiple instances of persons being told that their records are not available. What can be put into the system to identify or address a pattern rather than just having a set of many disappointed individuals?

In his reply, the Minister did not get a chance to address an amendment that was buried in the midst of this grouping. I am referring to the amendment on “all relevant records”. Rather than requesting records and needing to be sure to use the exact title, for example, “early life information” or “medical records”, and instead of having to engage in separate application processes, I am requesting that there be a provision whereby persons can just say that they would like “all relevant records” and they would then be given all of those strands of information.Perhaps that is already allowed for, but I am concerned that persons might not know what to ask for or they may ask for one set of information and not be aware that it will only be partial. Will the Minister address this amendment?