Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I should probably begin by taking responsibility. In the course of pre-legislative scrutiny, I first floated the idea of the registered letter because I looked to the courts and the mechanism there. A registered letter is sufficient in any legal proceedings as a demonstration of service of documents, proceedings and summonses. If a registered letter is sufficient to go before a court and a failure to attend a court case regardless of the issues at hand may result in a case being struck out, I did not see why it would be insufficient for a registered letter to be sent where the sender of the letter, Tusla or whatever other authority, adhered to the appropriate protocols and signed off that the register was checked for contact preferences. In that case, all beneficiaries of information would receive exactly the same treatment so there would be no risk of paternalism.Naturally, I will support the Government although I have personal unease with the proceedings. I will stand over it, regardless.

I have a difficulty with what is being proposed and am a little uneasy with the legal advice that has been given on this because it suggests that a telephone call or some other means of communication represents a discharging of its obligations by the State. I completely agree that there must be some positive action on the part of the State to demonstrate that it has protected the right to privacy of the affected individual. I have spoken with many birth mothers who are frightened for their current circumstances. It has nothing to do with their personal feelings with regard to this. We need to ensure that the State positively acts in the preservation of privacy.

However, in order to prove that a phone call took place, the transcript of that phone call is going to have to be held somewhere. Something like that is necessary. A mere ticking of a box to say that a phone call happened is a lesser burden than a registered letter. If we can go to that light a burden - that a phone call just took place - then what if the person does not answer the phone? What if that does not happen? In the alternative scenario, the person can put in a subject access request. If the person can put in a subject access request and get all the details anyway, then we seem to be undermining this in a circle.

I completely agree with the requirement to proactively do something on what is a constitutional right to privacy. In that hierarchy we are putting privacy below the right to personal identification, which is absolutely the right thing to do. I see that the Minister is shaking his head. I trust he has an answer and I know that this has been well thought through. I know that it is not for the want of trying and action on his part. What is captured? How is the phone call proven? Maybe I need to have an answer to that and then I can come back to the Minister. I need to understand how that is stronger and how we will not have a constitutional challenge anyway in this regard. If registered post suffices in the High Court, in what can be huge commercial proceedings and huge cases, for the striking out of cases then I do not see why it does not suffice here. That said, I am willing to hear the Minister's response. I know he has done a lot of work on it and I am ready to hear what he has to say.