Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Senator Ruane has outlined the details of each amendment. I will make an overall point. I feel strongly about these amendments because they are about the idea of what family and relationships mean, which is something that we have discussed at length. Ireland, as part of its evolution in this area, is trying to move away from a very patriarchal and hierarchical version of the family that descends towards the kinds of moments and glimmers we have had in the context of things like the Child and Family Relationships Act, which recognises that relationships are not simply a hierarchy and a cascade but that, in fact, a child has different relationships. There are different relationships with siblings, aunts and uncles, etc.

The problem with the Bill is that the version of next of kin outlined and the requirements in respect of those who are deceased mean that it is only where a parent is deceased that a sibling can access materials relating to a relevant person. In circumstances where a sibling is alive, an aunt, uncle or cousin may not be able to engage. It should not be a requirement that these other people have to be deceased in order for somebody who cares and who wants to connect to the information of someone who is related to them to be able to seek it directly. It should not be the case that if a parent is alive but is not exercising his or her next-of-kin powers in terms of these capacities, a sibling cannot do so. All of that is due to the definition of "next of kin", particularly in the context of access to information under the legislation, which is a leftover from the hierarchy to which I refer. The provision almost denies the next generation from knowing and accessing information and understanding the experiences of someone related to them.

This is an example of an unnecessary set of barriers. Senator Ruane outlined the different ways whereby we could proceed by changing the definition of "next of kin" or adding to the framing of the concept. The term "next of kin" has meaning in other legislation, which is it is difficult to redefine. That is why we also tried to insert measures that simply deal with the question of widening who might have the scope. Why should there be a barrier in place in this regard? By its very nature, the legislation acknowledges that, for example, a sibling relationship may be sufficient for a person to access information. Why should a person's ability to access such information as a sibling be conditional on whether a parent has chosen to exercise his or her powers in that regard? In the Child and Family Relationships Act, it is acknowledged that there is a network of relationships and of care. In the context of that legislation, even if the relevant person is not there any more, for those who want to understand their relationships, it is about acknowledging them in that way.

I wanted to speak on this issue because this is one of the examples whereby an old way of thinking keeps trying to re-embed itself. In thinking in a new, transformative, empowering and caring way about family and relationships, we need to catch that everywhere we can and be as generous as we can at every opportunity.