Rebecca Moynihan (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 68:

In page 25, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:

“Information relating to contact preference

17. In every case where an applicant is provided under this Act with a copy of the records that contain the birth information to which the application relates, or with a statement setting out the birth information contained in those records, the Authority shall send to the applicant, by prepaid registered post or other recorded delivery, a statement by the Authority setting out, in so far as it has established in relation to each relevant parent,whether— (a) he or she has not made a statement under section 38(11),

(b) he or she has made a statement under section 38(11)that either of the following applies:

(i) he or she is seeking to have contact with the applicant;

(ii) he or she is willing to be contacted by the applicant,

(c) he or she has made a statement under section 38(11)that he or she is not willing to be contacted by the applicant,

(d) he or she is deceased,

(e) he or she is not willing to be contacted by the applicant.”.

Amendment No. 68 is the substantive amendment in this group and deals with the issue of the mandatory information session. That issue, which these amendments address, is a big sticking point for us in the Labour Party. We are disappointed we did not see progress made on this issue in the Dáil. I know my colleague, Deputy Bacik, had a full debate with the Minister in committee and on the Dáil floor and we acknowledge how much progress was made on this and other issues on Committee Stage in the Dáil. We all appreciate improvements have been made to the Bill and the Minister is open to making improvements on Report Stage. However, this is still a difficult point for us and for those who are seeking information. It means access to birth information remains conditional in certain cases on the holding of this information session.

We all accept, as the Minister said on Committee Stage in the Dáil, that we need to balance information rights and privacy rights. For us, the retention of the mandatory information session means privacy rights continue to trump identity rights. During pre-legislative scrutiny, the committee put forward a unanimous recommendation that an alternative to mandatory information session as a safeguard to ensure the balance of the rights would be to send an appropriate statement by registered post. In amendment No. 68 and the other amendments in this group, we have crafted a mechanism whereby such a statement could be sent by the authority setting out the relevant matters in writing to a person seeking information. In our view, this would be a sufficient safeguard, along with other safeguards in the legislation, such as the information campaign, to ensure these constitutional rights are balanced. It would be a more practical mechanism because it would also ensure there could be no dispute as to what was said and whether a Zoom call or a meeting had, in fact, taken place. It would also show trust in people seeking the information that they would receive the statement and it would be sufficient.

We have looked at section 17 to see what the Government proposes as a safeguard. The information session need not be in one place but it does require that each participant is able, directly or by means of electronic communications technology, to speak and be heard by the other participants. It sets out in subsection (2) the relevant information about which the designated person is to inform the adopted person seeking the information. Why can this information not simply be set out in a written statement and be sent by registered post so there is proof it has been received? This is particularly relevant when section 17(4) requires the designated person, on completion of the information section, to confirm it has taken place and to provide a notification. There is already in the Government's proposal a mechanism for a written statement. Why not bypass the mandatory information session, bypass this condition on access to information, and proceed as the committee recommended rather than pursuing a paternalistic approach requiring an information session?