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

Part 4 of the Bill is very important for providing answers to family members of children who died in institutions. It provides for access to records for the family of those children who died in a mother and baby home or county home institution. The necessity for these provisions featured in the pre-legislative scrutiny recommendations. They were not in the original draft Schedule to the Bill, but we listened to what was said during the pre-legislative process by the groups and individuals who made representations on this point. As a result of that, Part 4 was introduced.

I am not in a position to accept the amendments from Senators Higgins and Ruane, primarily because we feel they lack a specificity that legislation requires. Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 seek to include the term "relative" rather than "next of kin". The term "next of kin", as used in section 26(2), specifies clearly who those people are and provides for, as we said, parents, siblings, uncles, aunts, nieces and nephews. This section has been carefully drafted in accordance with advice from the Office of the Attorney General.

The hierarchy of next of kin set out in section 26, which amendments Nos. 35 and 36 seek to remove, is a data protection safety for the deceased child because while rights are attenuated, they do not completely vanish and cannot be completely disregarded. It is also a data protection safeguard for parents whose personal data is included in the categories of information for release. It is necessary for parents to be deceased prior to the information being released to a sibling. I am satisfied that this section will allow those family members with questions to gain access to records while respecting data protection rights.

The Bill is significantly informed by data protection law. It is also informed by the principle that information concerning the identity of a parent does constitute personal data pertaining to relevant persons, and this has to allow for the balance to be tipped significantly towards identity.

It is important to remember that Part 4 is not about the identity rights of adopted people. It is about providing information to others about family members whom they lost. It serves a really important but separate purpose in ensuring access to records for the family of a deceased child. The issue in question is different from the identity rights issue that we sought to vindicate in terms of the balancing test and other discussions that we have had on that point.Obviously, a deceased person is not protected in that respect under the general data protection regulation, GDPR. I am struggling to understand the Minister's response to the effect that the balance is being tipped. However, a balance is being created in favour of, say, parents over siblings with respect to next of kin. Why is it necessary to balance that hierarchy of parents over siblings in terms of access, or am I understanding that wrong?