Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I am not in a position to accept these amendments, which seek to add to the list of secondary information sources provided for within the legislation, because I do not believe they are required. It is important to note the list of secondary information sources already includes a person prescribed under section 43(2). That is something that can be done through statutory instrument. There are also wider mechanisms within Part 7 which provide that even where a person is not designated as an information source, records can still be taken in by the State. I am confident that where relevant records are held by a religious order or psychiatric institution, they can be transferred to the AAI.

The Bill has been carefully drafted with certain overlaps to ensure all scenarios we can envisage are catered for. It has been my determined approach in progressing this legislation that it should be flexible and should support timely release of the records of which we are aware, with the ability to capture additional records that we become aware of over time. It is very important that the legislation is feasible in the context of rapid implementation and allows for the further processing of information sources through ministerial powers in a future-focused manner. The section that empowers a Minister, present or future, to prescribe additional information sources is section 43(2). The list currently included in the published Bill was carefully considered through consultation with stakeholders and organisations currently operating in the area of adoption, information release and tracing.

Section 46 already provides a catch-all requirement for any person or organisation in possession of a relevant record to safeguard it and to inform the authority that it holds the relevant record. Section 48 is also very relevant in this regard. It clearly sets out to whom and in what circumstances the adoption authority can issue a direction and, importantly, section 48(1)(b) states that a direction may issue to: "a person, other than an information source, who is in possession of a relevant record (whether [or not] such [a] person made a request under section 47 or not)." Again, that is a broad provision. This means the authority can direct the transfer of a relevant record from any person, regardless of whether that person wants the record to be transferred. That point is particularly important in respect of the Senator's allusion to the potential for bad faith actors. In addition, section 48(6) obliges the authority, when issuing a direction, to give consideration to any indication that a record may be at risk.

Should the authority become aware of a relevant record held by any person, I am confident that it can take that record. In particular, if the authority considers the record to be at risk, for example, of being lost or destroyed, it can take that record. These sections will work in tandem with the Minister's ability to prescribe information sources to guarantee the relevant records will be safeguarded and can be transferred. Therefore, I believe what the Senator is seeking to do can already happen within the provisions of the Bill.

As I said during our previous discussion, if it is in any way helpful, mechanisms are there to understand and get an assessment of the practical implementation of the legislation. It is there through the implementation group, although that could be a little high level in the context of what the Senator talked about, but the stakeholder reference group is also important. These will be people who will look for information, use it, and will probably be very well networked in with others who are in the same situation. Certainly, as long as I am in this role, if I believe a clear blockage has been identified, I will act and use the powers under secondary legislation.