Select Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 8 Mar 2022

Birth Information and Tracing Bill 2022: Committee Stage (Resumed)

SECTION 2

Vice Chairman

I welcome the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, and his officials to the meeting. All witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against a person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to this requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask members partaking via MS Teams that, prior to making their contributions, they confirm that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House complex.

Please note that, in order to limit the risk of spreading Covid-19, the service encourages all Members, visitors and witnesses to continue wearing face masks when moving around the campus or when in close proximity to others. We ask them to please be respectful of other people's physical space. They are also asked to adhere to any public health advice.

I remind members that, should a vote be called, they must physically come to the committee room in order to vote.

Before we resume our consideration of the Bill, I advise the Minister and members that two supplementary amendments have been added in the name of Deputy Cairns. These are amendments Nos. 352a and 359a and have been grouped with amendments Nos. 117 and 146 for discussion.

A revised grouping list was circulated to members by the Bills Office and hard copies are available from the secretariat.

To remind myself more than anyone else, but also anyone watching, we will move and discuss a group of amendments together. The proposers will have time to discuss that, the Minister will respond, there will be a discussion at that point and a further chance for the Minister to respond, after which we will put the question. At each point where there is a grouping of amendments, that is the opportunity to discuss all amendments in that grouping and all of them must be discussed at that point. However, amendments will still be considered for voting one by one. There may be an amendment that we are discussing that we do not get to vote on until later today or even the next session, depending on how we go. If there are procedural issues, we can pause the meeting and go into private like we did previously.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 70:

In page 11, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

“ “illegal adoption” means an illegal adoption, where any of the following situations occurred:

(a) where a non-marital child was registered as the natural child of the adoptive parents without the mother’s knowledge or consent and no adoption order was made;

(b) where a non-marital child was registered as the natural child of the adoptive parents and an adoption order was made;

(c) where a marital child was registered as the natural child of the adoptive parents and no adoption order was made;

(d) where a marital child was registered as the natural child of the adoptive parents and an adoption order was made;

(e) where the adoptive parents were not resident in the State at the time of the adoption;

(f) where a relinquished child over a year old was sent overseas for adoption without the consent and knowledge of the mother;

(g) where informed consent was not given, as in the case of birth mothers who were minors who signed consents without a guardian or legal advisor present, without understanding the import of severing parental rights;

(h) any adoption arranged by a private person or private body, not regarded as a registered adoption agency;

(i) any adoption arranged by a registered adoption agency or other body for the purpose of financial gain;”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Holly Cairns

I move amendment No. 71:

In page 11, line 22, to delete “incorrect” and substitute “illegal”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Holly Cairns

I move amendment No. 72:

In page 11, line 22, after “information” to insert “or illegal birth registration information”

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.

Tá

• Bacik, Ivana.
• Cairns, Holly.
• Funchion, Kathleen.
• Ward, Mark.

Níl

• Costello, Patrick.
• Crowe, Cathal.
• Dillon, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• O'Gorman, Roderic.

Amendment declared lost.

Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (Deputy Roderic O'Gorman)

I move amendment No. 73:

In page 11, lines 22 and 23, to delete “or has been”.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I move amendment No. 74:

In page 11, line 23, to delete “incorrect” and substitute “illegal”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Holly Cairns

I move amendment No. 75:

In page 11, line 23, after “registration” to insert “or an illegal birth registration”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Holly Cairns

I move amendment No. 76:

In page 11, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:

“(c) the personal data of the relevant person whose birth was illegally registered;”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Vice Chairman

Amendment No. 77 is grouped with amendments Nos. 155, 167, 173 to 179, inclusive, 196, 219, 252 and 257. They are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 77:

In page 11, line 32, to delete “information” and substitute “records”.

I will speak to amendments Nos. 77, 167, 173 to 179, inclusive, and the last group of amendments Nos. 196, 219, 252 and 257. Amendment No. 77 removes the ambiguity around language. A person's medical information is the person's personal data and the person has a fundamental right under EU law to access that data, and not merely information contained in a record for which a person may apply. GDPR law makes it clear that medical data should be released, not information contained in the data.

Amendment No. 167 seeks to amend the unacceptable constraint on affected people's access to personal data. Items of this nature which were left with an adoption agency or an institution are highly unlikely to have been provided for anyone else's benefit.

Amendments Nos. 173 to 179, inclusive, are very similar to amendment No. 77. They again remove ambiguity around language.

The last group, amendments Nos. 196, 219, 252 and 257, seeks to remove the restrictions on what medical data is shared. Basically, we have proposed these amendments with regard to vital medical information being shared. They are all very similar.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I propose these amendments for the same reasons. Amendment No. 77 is important. It just shows the power of language and what is meant in this Bill. The substitution of the word "records" for "information" is vital. Information implies that whoever is the holder of the record can decide what is released, and that is the crux of the problem. We are going to have a situation where that is going to have to be challenged and go through that whole process before it can be decided whether somebody has not released the full information. That is wrong. It should not be in this, particularly when we are dealing with a group of people who have had everything that the State has done against them to this point. We should be making it easier for them now. It shows the importance of language and of a simple word like that. For that reason this amendment should be accepted. I do not see that it would impact significantly on the legislation. It would remove a lot of the burden of complying with the legislation as well, because rather than having to decide which information one does or does not want to release, the assumption is that one would release everything. That is important.

In summary, the other amendments are the same. They seek to change and put in words and I am happy to support them. We will also be opposing a section at a later stage. I cannot remember what number it is, but that will be included as well.

Vice Chairman

It will be quite a while before we get to the section.

Deputy Holly Cairns

To add briefly to what the other Deputies have said, these amendments are important to highlight the obligations of relevant bodies to provide information for adopted people. It is an important departure, providing proactive responses to the rights of adopted people. I will leave it at that.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

I thank the Deputies for the amendments. I will take amendments Nos. 77 and 173 to 178, inclusive, and speak to them first. Then I will speak on the other amendments.

Amendments Nos. 77 and 173 to 178, inclusive, seek to replace the word "information" with the word "records" in respect of the provision of medical information. The goal of the amendments appears to be to ensure that where a person applies to receive his or her medical information, he or she is assured that he or she will receive actual copies of the relevant documents where such records are available. We cannot accept the text of the amendments as submitted here because of consistency grounds. As they are here, they will remove the fundamental entitlement to medical information. That is just the way they are drafted. However, I am in full agreement with the spirit of the amendments. The intention of this provision was always that an applicant's medical information and the records on which the person's medical information is held would be released directly to the applicant in full. As such, I am happy to accept amendments Nos. 77 and 173 to 178, inclusive, in principle and I will table amendments on Report Stage to reflect what is provided for here. This was an oversight in this section. It should have provided for access to both the information and copies of the records on which this information is based. It is because this section was originally combined with others and it has evolved over time, so I will bring forward amendments to reflect that on Report Stage.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

I support the amendments and I thank the Minister for his clarification. It is very helpful to hear it. These amendments were clearly put forward in the spirit of ensuring that adopted people would have access to full records, not to information about records. What all of us who were engaged in the hearings during pre-legislative scrutiny heard from adopted persons and organisations representing adopted persons was the real hunger to have access, as should be their right, to the original records about their birth, not to any types of secondary sources for information about them. I welcome the Minister's indication that he accepts the amendments in principle. That is very helpful. It will help to ensure the Bill is changed constructively to reflect more precisely not just the right to information about records but the right of access to records, which is what we all want to see enshrined in law.

Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor

I, too, welcome the changes there. They are very important. As the Minister said in our previous meetings, he is listening. It is important that adoptees get full information. I welcome that the the Minister will have a look at these amendments.

Vice Chairman

To be clear, is the Minister accepting amendment No. 77?

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

I hope the amendments will be withdrawn on the basis of my agreement, in principle, to bring forward provisions on Report Stage to address what is provided for in amendments Nos. 77 and 173 to 178, inclusive. If they could be withdrawn, that would help the process.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Perhaps we should submit them on Report Stage and withdraw them at that point, when the legislation is provided.

Vice Chairman

They still need to be moved.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 78:

In page 12, line 12, to delete “Regulation;” and substitute the following:

“Regulation. Under this Act, all records relating to the adoption or informal care arrangement of a relevant person are considered to be that person’s personal data, regardless of whether that data is shared with another person. Personal data in relation to a relevant person, includes but is not limited to:

(a) personal data in terms of the relevant person’s physical, mental, and physiological identity, including but not limited to:

(i) the relevant person’s place of birth;

(ii) details, if applicable, of whether the relevant person was carried to full term, and if not, what precipitated early delivery and at what stage in the pregnancy;

(iii) the relevant person’s health status at birth;

(iv) details regarding the circumstances of the relevant person’s birth, e.g. was it a normal birth or if there were complications;

(v) the relevant person’s birth weight;

(vi) the relevant person’s physical condition and circumstances during their early months and years;

(vii) records concerning the relevant person’s early-life care;

(viii) records concerning the relevant person’s health from birth until the time of placement;

(ix) the relevant person’s medical records from birth until the time of placement, including x-rays, tests, vaccines;

(x) the relevant person’s family medical history;

(xi) records of any vaccine trials in which the relevant person was a research subject;

(b) personal data in terms of the relevant person’s genetic identity, including but not limited to:

(i) the relevant person’s name at birth;

(ii) the relevant person’s mother’s forename and surname, as held in the public Register of Births or equivalent if the relevant person’s mother was born outside of Ireland;

(iii) the relevant person’s father’s forename and surname, as held in the public Register of Births or equivalent if the relevant person’s father was born outside of Ireland;

(iv) the relevant person’s genetic relatives’ names, as held in the public Register of Births or equivalent if the relevant person’s relative was born outside of Ireland;

(c) personal data in terms of the relevant person’s economic, cultural and social identity, both before and after their adoption or placement in informal care, relating to their economic, cultural and social identity both around the time of their birth and after their adoption or placement in informal care, and which relate to how the relevant person acquired their adoptive identity, including but not limited to:

(i) the relevant person’s name at birth, as held in the public Register of Births;

(ii) the relevant person’s date of birth;

(iii) the relevant person’s place of birth;

(iv) the relevant person’s mother’s forename and surname, as held in the public Register of Births or equivalent if the relevant person’s mother was born outside of Ireland;

(v) the relevant person’s father’s forename and surname, as held in the public Register of Births or equivalent if the relevant person’s father was born outside of Ireland;

(vi) the relevant person’s relatives’ names, as held in the public Register of Births or equivalent if the relevant person’s relative was born outside of Ireland;

(vii) the relevant person’s county/country of origin at the time of their birth;

(viii) the occupation of the relevant person’s parents and family members at the time of the relevant person’s birth;

(ix) the relevant person’s parents’ ages at the time of the relevant person’s birth;

(x) the relevant person’s grandparents’ occupations at the time of the relevant person’s birth;

(xi) the number of siblings in the immediate family of the relevant person’s mother;

(xii) the circumstances surrounding the relevant person’s adoption or informal care arrangement;

(xiii) correspondence about the relevant person, including correspondence associated with the administrative process surrounding the relevant person’s adoption or informal care arrangement, and correspondence from the relevant person’s mother enquiring about the relevant person;

(xiv) the assessment process associated with the relevant person’s adoption or informal care arrangement;

(xv) the administrative process surrounding the relevant person’s adoption or informal placement, including records about the decision-making process around the placement, correspondence with the adoptive parents and others, and how the relevant person acquired their adoptive/new identity;

(xvi) the names of the people responsible for the relevant person’s care during the relevant person’s early weeks, months and years;

(xvii) the place at which the relevant person resided and the individual who was in charge of that place;

(xviii) where applicable, the date and place of the relevant person’s baptism or any other ceremony of a religious or spiritual nature performed in the period in respect of the relevant person;

(xix) where applicable, any person, agency or organisation who made arrangements for the relevant person’s adoption, whether or not an adoption was effected in respect of the relevant person;

(xx) where applicable, the date on which the relevant person was made the subject of a foster care arrangement or placed with prospective adopters;

(xxi) information regarding whether the relevant person’s mother was resident in any other institution offering social care/support either prior to or subsequent to the adopted person’s birth;

(xxii) information regarding whether the mother stayed at the institution with the adopted person prior to their placement with the adoptive parents;

(xxiii) any anecdotal information regarding the adopted person’s stay in the institution;

(xxiv) if applicable, whether the relevant person’s mother was transferred from the Mother and Baby Home to a Magdalene Laundry or other institution, and if so, details of the circumstances;

(xxv) if applicable, whether the relevant person’s mother was transferred from a Magdalene Laundry or another institution, to the Mother and Baby Home prior to giving birth and if so, details of the circumstances;

(xxvi) whether the relevant person’s mother gave informed consent to the adoption;

(xxvii) whether the relevant person’s mother was made aware of or offered any other choices apart from adoption;

(xxviii) whether the relevant person’s mother received support after their adoption;

(xxix) any letters, cards or other materials placed on the adoption file(s) by the relevant person’s mother;

(xxx) any letters, cards or other materials placed on the adoption file(s) by the relevant person’s father or other relatives;

(xxxi) any letters, cards or other materials placed on the adoption file(s) by the relevant person’s adoptive parents;”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Vice Chairman

Amendment No. 79 is grouped with amendments Nos. 80, 165, 166, 168 to 172, inclusive, 226 to 228, inclusive, 258 and 260. Amendment No. 80 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 79. Amendments Nos. 79, 80, 165, 166, 168 to 172, inclusive, 226 to 228, inclusive, 258 and 260 may be discussed together.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 79:

In page 12, to delete lines 16 to 25.

I will speak to amendment No. 80 at this stage. Others may also wish to come in. It provides for a broader definition for a “provided item”, moving beyond "another person involved in the provision of care" to "another person connected to". Amendment No. 226 removes a clause which could be interpreted as restrictive. Amendment No. 227 again provides for a proactive measure to oblige the relevant body to locate the data controller for the items being sought. This is about granting every mechanism to facilitate adopted people and other relevant people in accessing information. Amendment No. 228 removes the restriction on adopted people being permitted access to specific items. Amendment No. 260 is similar to No. 227 in that it facilitates persons in accessing information.

Deputy Holly Cairns

I will add ever so slightly to that with regard to amendment No. 228, which removes the restriction on adopted people being permitted access to specific items. The Minister has refused amendments based on the likely unavailability of information or even the existence of such information. This restriction falls into that category. In this case, the provision of items is dependent on knowledge of the motivation behind the leaving of the item with the relevant bodies, which seems to be an unnecessary obstacle. Amendment No. 260 is similar to No. 227 in facilitating persons' access to information.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Amendment No. 79 makes changes with regard to what is relevant to individuals who are adoptees. That is important.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

I will respond to specific amendments but, first, it is important to note that page 12 of the Bill sets out the definition of what a "provided item" is. The whole purpose behind this legislation is to provide adopted people with information. We have discussed the various categories of information. However, its purpose is also to provide them with provided items. If anything was left for them by their family members, they should be entitled to it. That is why we have drawn this broad definition. It is not a random definition or something that was concocted quickly. It has been worked on and thought about in the context of this legislation. That is really important to state. Every definition here has been thought about in a lot of detail to ensure it interacts properly with the rest of this legislation and also with other legislation. Where we have recognised that the definitions we have do not square with everything, as was the case with the last amendment, we are happy to admit that and bring forward changes. However, we do not believe that the changes Deputies have proposed here are appropriate.

As it currently stands, the definition sets out the different items that may be contained within records that must be released in all cases. The types of items included in the definition are letters, photographs, mementoes or any other documents or objects. The list provided in the legislation on page 12 is not exhaustive. That is really important. It also provides for the different types of people who may lodge a provided item. This includes parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles and first cousins. Both items placed on historic files and items provided through the contact preference register that will be established under this legislation are provided for.

I cannot support amendment No. 79. As I have said, the definition of a "provided item" is central to ensuring clarity and consistency and guaranteeing the release of items. It provides an important mechanism through which historic items can be shared with the person to whom they relate and family members will be allowed to share contemporaneously provided items.

Again, I cannot support amendment No. 80. The definition of a "provided item" was carefully considered in the drafting of the Bill and the list of persons who can deposit provided items was carefully considered in that drafting. To make it clear, the ability to lodge a provided item with the authority under section 39(1) is not the only way in which a person can share information. The robust statutory tracing service established under Part 8 of this legislation provides for information to be shared or requested while maintaining the level of contact a person is comfortable with. It is important that the tracing service allows the person initiating the trace and the person on the other end of the trace to have the final say with regard to the degree of contact they want.

With regard to amendments Nos. 165, 166, 168 to 172, inclusive, 226 to 228, inclusive, 258 and 260, I again cannot support the amendments. In terms of the threshold for the release of information, it is important to note that, as it stands, the section does not stipulate the threshold of proof required to fulfil the criteria in respect of a specified item or provided item for the purposes of being made available to the relevant person. I will be publishing policy guidelines in respect of that. We discussed the issue of the provision of policy guidelines when we discussed similar amendments last week. These guidelines will confirm the ability of the bodies to release provided items. In the future, any provided items lodged under section 39(1) will fall under the criteria of specified items or items provided for the purpose of being made available to the same person and their release will not require any degree of discretion.

With regard to amendments Nos. 168 and 172, while I understand the intention behind these amendments, it is important to note that the application process is important for a number of reasons, the most significant of these being that relevant persons have complete control over the categories of information they are seeking and wish to access. That is important. We want to maintain that process.

Amendments Nos. 171, 227 and 260 seek to place an obligation on both the agency and the authority to seek out records that they do not hold without any certainty that they exist. Again, the whole purpose behind this legislation is to require the authority or the agency to release all information it has. It will not have a choice or discretion but must release that information. These amendments ask the authority or agency to go looking for information that it does not have and that it does not even know exists. We have spoken about division of resources and the need to allow these agencies to focus on the delivery of what will be, in the initial years, a significant amount of information. To ask them to go looking for information when they do not know whether it exists is not a good use of the resources of either the Adoption Authority of Ireland, AAI, or Tusla when large numbers of people are on waiting lists whose information is available and there to be released. There is also the question of how we would ever know whether this obligation has been fulfilled. How do you ever know if an agency has done all it can to find information that you do not know exists? This provision is not workable and, as such, I cannot support it.

Chairman

Do any members of the committee wish to comment?

Deputy Thomas Pringle

The Minister has said that he is going to publish guidelines as to what this means. For clarity, when will those guidelines be published? Will it be after the Bill is passed?

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

In a number of sections, the legislation provides for guidelines to be published by me or the Minister of the day with regard to the interpretation the agencies, that is Tusla and the AAI, will give to various provisions including provisions in respect of provided items and care information. Again, this speaks to the concern that we touched on at the end of our discussion the last day, the sense among many adopted people that there was a culture of not releasing information. When you look at the history in this area, there was definitely such a culture in the past. As I stated the last day, we are doing two things to address that culture, beyond this legislation which clearly provides for a legal basis and legal obligation to release information. One is the establishment of the implementation group, headed by my Department, which brings together Tusla, the AAI and the Department to talk about the approach to be taken.

Officials from my Department have met those who will lead the implementation of this legislation and both agencies to talk about the change in culture. I know Mr. Bernard Gloster has appeared before this committee and members have spoken to him. It is very clear that he realises the need for a change in culture particularly in Tusla regarding its culture of release of information. Beyond that there is also the publication of guidelines. If a future Minister believes that the changing culture is not being manifest, those guidelines can be tightened and refined to ensure that we get full release of all information.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 80:

In page 12, line 19, to delete “involved in the provision of care of” and substitute “connected to”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

I move amendment No. 81:

In page 13, line 5, to delete “or has been”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

I move amendment No. 82:

In page 13, line 6, to delete “or has been”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Holly Cairns

I move amendment No. 83:

In page 13, line 6, to delete “incorrect” and substitute “illegal”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 84:

In page 13, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

“(d) a person who was separated from their genetic relatives through forced family separation, regardless of the circumstances;”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 85:

In page 13, to delete lines 13 and 14 and substitute the following:

“(a) the personal data of the relevant person,”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 86:

In page 13, lines 22 and 23, to delete “, in the period commencing on 1 January 1940 and ending on 31 December 1979,”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 87:

In page 13, line 24, after “State” to insert “regardless of whether or not an adoption took place”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 88:

In page 13, line 26, after “person” to insert “regardless of whether or not an adoption took place”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 89:

In page 13, to delete line 28 and substitute the following:

“(e) any information recorded on the Contact Preference Register;”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 90:

In page 13, to delete line 28 and substitute the following:

“(e) administrative records of the Authority, the Agency or a Primary or Secondary Information Source;”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 91:

In page 13, to delete line 28 and substitute the following:

“(e) a full schedule of all records held on the file relating to the relevant person;”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 92:

In page 13, to delete line 28 and substitute the following:

“(e) records provided to or created by the Authority or the Agency in the course of providing a tracing service;”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Vice Chairman

Amendments Nos. 93 to 101, inclusive, 107, 108 and 357 are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 93:

In page 14, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:

“(i) any person or organisation involved in facilitating adoptions;”.

Amendments Nos. 93 to 101, inclusive, seek to expand the organisations and individuals involved in the organisation of incarceration or facilitating of adoptions, whether legal or illegal. It is incorrect that any institution that was established or operated for the purposes of providing care to children in residence may be added to the Schedule because section 5 states that only the Minister may add to the Schedule. This means a significant number of the 182 institutions, agencies and individuals involved in separating unmarried mothers from their children will still be exempt from the legislation.

Amendment No. 107 seeks to expand again to include any individual or organisation that operated in this State for the purposes of care to children. Amendment No. 108 changes the connotation making it irrelevant whether the State had regulatory inspection function. Amendment No. 357 again seeks to expand the remit of the Bill to provide a mechanism for adopted people and mothers to access the administrative records of institutions, agencies and individuals involved in forced family separation. We know that this was widespread and the people affected by this practice often feel they have no right to ask for information. It is therefore imperative that forced family separation is included in the Long Title of the Bill.

Deputy Holly Cairns

These are important amendments. Amendments numbers 93 to 101, inclusive, expand the definition of secondary information source to include the very wide range of actors that we know were involved in the adoption process. The current list does not make explicit reference to any persons or organisations involved in facilitating adoptions, the care of adopted people and family separation. Given the realities of the adoption process, it is important for these amendments to be made to make specific reference to these persons as potential sources of information.

Amendments Nos. 96 to 101, inclusive, introduce reference to any Roman Catholic Church or Church of Ireland bodies or organisations as secondary information sources. Obviously, given the scale of involvement of those bodies in the adoption process, it is crucial that they are explicitly referenced as secondary information sources.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I agree with those sentiments. It is vital to expand the list to include those. This goes back to what we were saying on the last grouping of amendments about the need for people to be assured that the legislation will provide for all those bodies to be included. This ties in with GDPR and the information available for people to request. I fully support these amendments.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

The context is on page 13 of the legislation where we have the definition of prescribed secondary sources. This definition includes a list of bodies that, on the enactment of the legislation, are immediately designated as secondary information sources. These include the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, the Minister for Education, the Minister for Health, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the data controller of the access to institutional and related records, AIRR, archive, the HSE, a registered adoption society, and an accredited body. Importantly, the definition also allows a Minister to designate a secondary information source under section 43(2). The power of the Minister, that is me or any future Minister, to designate other groups as a secondary information source under this legislation is a key element.

I cannot accept amendments Nos. 93 to 101, and 107 and 108. They seek to expand the list of secondary information sources within the legislation itself. Again, I do not believe this is necessary because the power is already included under section 43(2), to designate other bodies, and any body so designated would be classified as a secondary information source.

Section 43(2) empowers a Minister to prescribe additional information sources. The proposed addition of amendments Nos. 94 to 108 is unnecessary. Importantly, it would also generate obligations on an unclear list of people. It is unclear who would come within the definition of an organisation involved in the care of a relevant person. That would appear to potentially engage every organisation that has provided a health or social care service at every stage of a person's life. What is being proposed here is an absolutely vast array of coverage, which goes far beyond the focus of what this Bill is trying to achieve. The list currently included in the published Bill was carefully considered through consultation with stakeholders and organisations that are currently operating in the area of adoption information release and tracing, or that hold specific sets of historical records.

Additionally, secondary information sources are relevant only in their obligation to safeguard relevant records under Part 7. This is very important. We are talking about the safeguarding element here. The legislation 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 that relevant record under section 46. There is already a catch-all provision there under section 46.

I intend to make regulations designating further relevant bodies and secondary information sources. Private entities, church bodies and religious congregations can be so designated. It is important in designing those regulations that they are carefully constructed to clearly and accurately identify the relevant holder of records. For example, Tusla now holds many of the institutional records, which people may believe are in the possession of religious congregations. As we are aware, a huge amount of the information that was held by the congregations, especially those who ran mother and baby home and county home institutions, has already been transferred over to Tusla. At different dioceses or parish levels there may be baptismal records, which would be highly valuable for relevant persons. Again, we are using the regulation power under the legislation to design it carefully so we can have regulations that target exactly the relevant record holders, so we can deliver records to people, rather than the extremely broad-brush approach proposed here that brings far too much potential information far beyond what this legislation is designed to cover, and which causes real difficulties in the future.

I wish to be clear that there are mechanisms set out in the legislation, primarily the ability to designate a secondary information source under section 43(2), and separately, the ability of the catch-all subsection in section 46 to address issues of concern here.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I hope that some of this is addressed in whatever regulations are published. I understand that they would not be ready at this point but it would be helpful if they were ready for Report Stage.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move Amendment No. 94:

In page 14, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:

“(i) any person or organisation involved in the care of a relevant person;”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move Amendment No. 95:

In page 14, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:

“(i) any person or organisation involved in forced family separation;”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move Amendment No. 96:

In page 14, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:

“(i) a religious order of the Roman Catholic Church;”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move Amendment No. 97:

In page 14, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:

“(i) a religious order of the Church of Ireland;”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 98:

In page 14, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:

“(i) a diocese or parish of the Roman Catholic Church;”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 99:

In page 14, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:

“(i) a diocese or parish of the Church of Ireland;”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 100:

In page 14, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:

“(i) any religious order of the Roman Catholic Church involved in the incarceration of women and children and forced family separation;”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 101:

In page 14, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:

“(i) any religious order of the Church of Ireland involved in the incarceration of women and children and forced family separation;”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Vice Chairman

Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed. Amendment No. 103 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 102.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 102:

In page 14, to delete lines 4 to 11.

This amendment relates to the restrictive timeframes. There may be some confusion, and perhaps we could get clarity on this. The Bill defines early life care information as the information gathered from birth up until the age of 18. Section 2(2) states that a person's early life care information only covers the period after the birth only until the time the child is adopted. Perhaps we could get clarity on that.

Vice Chairman

The Minister can discuss amendment No. 103 in this group also.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

Amendment No. 102 proposes to delete section (2)(2) that reads:

For the purpose of the definition of “care information” and “early life information” in subsection (1), the period referred to in the definition shall be deemed to end -

(a) in the case of an adopted person, on the date on which he or she became an adopted person, and

(b) in the case of a person who is, or has been, the subject of an incorrect birth registration, on the date on which the person named as mother and, if applicable, father, in the entry in the register of births concerned assumed the role of parents in relation to the person and treated that person as her or their lawful child.

The function of this subsection is to define the period of time during which the definitions of care information and early life information apply. It is included for accuracy and precision in the terms of drafting. The reason I cannot accept the amendment is because it would delete the section entirely and offers no substitution or alternative for it. In the case of an adopted person, this time period ends where they were adopted. In the case of someone who was the subject of an illegal birth registration the period ends at the time their social parents took over responsibility for them.

The legislation that we have here is primarily aimed at supporting relevant persons to exercise their right to identity through access to information relating to the origin of their birth and early life and for individuals affected, this can only be fully inserted and achieved through clear access via statutory pathway to the information that is on the historic files. We know this information will guarantee that for the first time. The amendment, however, seeks to remove this focus and instead extend the period until the relevant person is 18 years old. It is important that this amendment will have no practical purpose because if a person is adopted at the age of 12 years there will be no further information held by adoption agencies about them because they will now be with their adopted parents. Saying that there will be early life information about them and extending that up to the age of 18 years would not work in this situation. There will only be early life and care information about them for the length of time that they are in an institution. That ends at the time they are either adopted or, as we know in certain cases, the subject of an illegal birth registration. That is why we do not feel that this is correct. If this amendment is followed through, a lacuna will be left open for no valuable purpose.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

I move amendment No. 103:

In page 14, line 8, to delete “or has been,”.

This is a technical amendment proposed by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for the purposes of accuracy. The definition of incorrect birth registration is purposely constructed so that a person who is the subject of an illegal birth registration will always come within the scope of the definition even after the correction to the birth register. Therefore on the grounds of accuracy, the amendment simply removes the redundant words "or has been" to this reference to persons affected by an illegal birth registration. This ensures alignment with section 23 of the Bill.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

I move amendment No. 104:

In page 14, to delete lines 14 and 15 and substitute the following:

“(a) the name of a person other than the mother of the first mentioned person was falsely or otherwise incorrectly entered in the register of births as the mother of the first mentioned person, and”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

I move amendment No. 105:

In page 14, line 14, to delete “the name” and substitute “as a result of the giving of information that was false or misleading, the name”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

I move amendment No. 106:

In page 14, line 19, to delete “section 63” and substitute “Part 3B (inserted by Part 8) or section 63”.

This is a technical amendment to delete section 63 and substitute “Part 3B (inserted by Part 8) or section 63".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 107:

In page 14, line 35, after “resident” to insert the following:

“any person or organisation involved in facilitating adoptions, any person or organisation involved in the care of a relevant person, any person or organisation

involved in forced family separation”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 108:

In page 14, line 35, to delete “in respect of which” and substitute “regardless of whether”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 5 agreed to.

SECTION 6

Vice Chairman

Amendments Nos 109 to 116, inclusive, 118 to 126, inclusive, 131 to 135, inclusive, and 143 and 144 are related. Amendments Nos 114 to 116, inclusive, are physical alternatives to amendment No. 113. Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 are physical alternatives to amendment No. 131. Amendment No. 135 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 134. Amendment No. 144 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 143. Amendments Nos. 109 to 116, inclusive, 118 to 126, inclusive, 131 to 135, inclusive, 143 and 144 may be discussed together.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 109:

In page 15, line 8, to delete “and sections 7 and 8”.

I will be very brief as I must speak in the Chamber in a few minutes. If I leave and return, that is the reason. I was afraid that we might get to this section after I had to leave so I am glad that I have the opportunity to speak because this is one of the key sections. It is one of the key contentious issues. If you took everything else away this might be best described as the red line. It relates to the mandatory information session. People feel very strongly that if a parent registers a no contact preference that they would then be asked to attend a meeting. Regardless of whether it is with a social worker, in an in-person meeting, over Zoom or a phone call, people feel very strongly that they do not want it to take place. It should not inhibit them getting access to their birth certificates and other information. People feel that there is an attitude that the State knows best. It is something that arose a lot at our committee hearings. The committee did recommend the use of registered post and that has since been discussed in the Dáil and so on. I feel very strongly that it is an alternative we should look at putting in place. This is one part of the Bill that I would not be able to accept at all. We need to go back to the drawing board on the whole area of a mandatory information session. It is not right or fair on individuals looking for their birth certificate. There is a fear about what exactly will be said at these meetings.

From the State's point of view, I do not really understand why it would not be better to have a registered letter because it is there in black and white and nobody can say that something was said at a meeting that was not said. It is a lot more straightforward. I know there will be many arguments as to why that is not the case but I feel very strongly about it. I know people are very upset about it and they wanted us to communicate the view that they do not want a mandatory information session in any way, shape or form regardless of whether it is just a phone call, which might not seem like a big deal to people but really is. It is important that their rights and wishes are respected and that this is changed.

Deputy Holly Cairns

I also must go to the Chamber shortly to speak. It is quite telling that with the exception of Deputy Pringle, the only people here really speaking on the amendments are women and now we are all going to speak on International Women's Day so it is bad timing in terms of the schedule. I think the Chairman and everybody else is really aware of the highly contested issue around mandatory information sessions that we heard time and time again throughout pre-legislative scrutiny. People find it really insulting and upsetting and I do not think anyone understands why it is still there.

Amendment No. 145 concerns the information sessions for young people aged 16 to 18. The same arguments against mandatory information sessions in general apply to them. Amendment No. 208 relates to a reference in section 19 to the mandatory information session, which the Office of the Parliamentary Legal Counsel identified as a real barrier in accessing information. It seeks to remove reference to the session. We hashed all these arguments out in the Dáil Chamber and in this committee and there is broad agreement around the mandatory information session. I really hope it is reconsidered.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I fully support what the Deputies have said. It is amazing when you read it because all this information can be accessed from other sources anyway and people have been doing that. To single out adopted people and tell them they must go through this process is completely wrong. I would even have doubts about using a registered letter to them outlining the responsibilities or the fact that the information is there but I think this is really wrong, cannot be contemplated and should not be in this legislation. These people must be the only people in the State singled out and treated differently regarding access to birth certificates, which is completely wrong. I could be wrong but I would like to be proven wrong.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

It is unfortunate timing that all of us are due to speak in the Chamber for statements on International Women's Day just as these crucial amendments are coming up so I express regret that we will be in and out of the Chamber. My amendments in this grouping are Nos. 119 to 122, inclusive; Nos. 123 to 126, inclusive; Nos. 132 to 137, inclusive; and No. 144. I have other amendments in the next grouping as well, all of which relate to the mandatory information session, which as we have all heard and know, is the most contentious issue in the Bill as it currently stands. We know the long history and that what is being proposed by the Minister and Department is an improvement on what went before in terms of conditions on access but nonetheless requiring a information session means that access remains conditional. During pre-legislative scrutiny, all of us devised an alternative arrangement involving a registered post letter, which we believed would have answered the arguments made by the Minister and Department about some sort of communication and would have been infinitely preferable to requiring an information session.

There are two key points. What happens if an adopted person refuses to engage or does not wish to engage in the information session? I know the Minister talks about untrammelled access to information but the reality is that there is that condition that the records cannot be released unless the information session is engaged in and there does not seem to us to be any recourse to be had if a person does not wish to engage in that information session so it is a condition on access. I cannot see how it could not be. These amendments are designed to remove that condition on access. Amendment No. 199 in the next group will replace it with a registered post provision similar to the recommendation in our report.

The second point, which was made by Deputy Cairns, is that we took the view that registered post would also be a safer option from everyone's point of view because it sets out in writing any issues whereas the content of a phone call can be very problematic. It can be very difficult for somebody in a vulnerable position to take a phone call and it can be very difficult to establish what was said in a phone call or have any clarity or record of what was said in a phone call. To require mandatory information sessions and say it can be done by phone still amounts to a condition on access to the data, records and actual life information of the individual. It also seems to be less safe and secure than the registered post option we suggested to meet the constitutional argument that was made by the Department to ensure there would be free right of access to information and birth records.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss these issues because Deputies are right. This section is central to this legislation and is central to us being able to ensure that if this legislation is challenged, it will be found to be constitutional. That is a very real risk. Many of the difficulties adopted people face in this area are the result of a constitutional challenge about the release of information in the case of I. O'T v. B. I know there are many criticisms of the way in which it has been interpreted by courts, successive Governments and State agencies but nevertheless that case has had a massive influence. That was a situation where a parent challenged the release of information so we are not talking in the abstract here. Because of the fraught history of adoption in this country, the secrecy around it and the need for secrecy that is still experienced by some adopted people and, in particular, some mothers, this is a fraught area so we must design legislation that is not at risk of being found to be unconstitutional.

We are trying to balance two sets of constitutional rights here. Much of our discussion at this point has been about the right of the adopted person to their identity. This is a right that successive Irish Governments and legislation have failed to vindicate. We must say this upfront. Adopted people have been failed when it comes to the vindication of their right to identity. The right to identity is now recognised by the courts as an unenumerated right and a constitutional right and it is recognised under EU law as well. With this legislation, we are seeking to vindicate that right. However, there is another set of rights holders in many of these cases. This involves a parent seeking to exercise their right to privacy. Again, it is important for us to realise that we cannot make any value judgments about the decision of a parent to exercise that right. If a parent wishes to remain anonymous from a child they gave up for adoption, that is their right and that is an exercise of their right to privacy. We may think it is terrible that they must feel that need, and it is something I personally feel, but it is not my decision to make. It is their exercise of their privacy right, which is a constitutional right. It is important that we balance constitutional rights in this situation.

One of the amendments here proposes to delete this section in its entirety - this balancing section set out by the information session. I very much wish to put on the record that if this section is deleted in its entirety, this Bill will be constitutionally flawed because there will be no recognition of privacy rights and this will be easily struck down by any future court.

In terms of how the balancing mechanism we are bringing forward in this legislation works, an adopted person seeks access to their information. The agency looks at the contact preference register. Where a preference accepting contact is put on the contact preference register or there is no entry in the register, all information is immediately provided to the adopted person. Nothing more needs to happen. All information is released through whatever mechanism the adopted person wants. If they want it sent to them in written or photocopied form, that is fine. If they want it in an email, that is fine. If the agency finds that there is a no-contact preference, which is something a parent will have to proactively do following the introduction of the three-month public information campaign that will follow the passing of this legislation, and the parent has decided they want it registered that they do not want contact, the agency will call the adopted person or undertake an online or in-person meeting.

It is important to remember that it can be by way of a telephone call as well. In that telephone call, three elements will be discussed. First, the designated person, who no longer has to be a social worker because we took on board people's concerns about a social worker, will inform the adopted or boarded-out person of the entitlement of the relevant person to obtain his or her birth certificate and birth information related to him to her, as the case may be, in accordance with this Act. Second, "that the parent concerned has stated, in accordance with this Act, that he or she is not willing to be contacted by the relevant person". The third element is the "importance of the relevant person respecting the privacy rights of the parent and the preference of the parent referred to in paragraph (b)". That is the content of the telephone call as set down clearly in legislation. I have heard the concerns that adopted people have expressed about the content of that telephone call. I propose to bring forward an amendment to section 17(2)(c), which we will have an opportunity to discuss later on.

That is the process. After the telephone call has taken place and those three points have been conveyed to the relevant person - the adopted person - the full information is provided for. We are going from a situation where a statement by a parent that he or she wanted to exercise his or her privacy rights meant an adopted person got nothing to one where, when a parent exercises his or her privacy rights, the above mentioned elements are conveyed to the adopted person by way of telephone call and the adopted person gets everything. That is the scale of the change we are talking about here. It is important to understand the scale of that change because that is a huge limitation on the privacy rights of the parent. The balance has entirely shifted from one that favoured the privacy rights of the parent in almost every situation, and led to adopted people being so restricted for so long, to a situation where the privacy rights of the parent are restricted. Parents cannot now keep their names from the adopted person in any situation. All they can do is, through this process, have their no-contact preference conveyed to the adopted person. It cannot be enforced. In previous drafts, the adopted person was asked to sign a statutory undertaking, which later changed to a non-statutory undertaking. In one of the earlier drafts, there was a criminal prohibition on the adopted person contacting the parent. All of that is removed. All that has to take place now is this meeting.

Why have we chosen the idea of an information session? It is important to reference that this is not something that came from my Department. Rather, it is something that has been discussed as a means of balancing those sets of rights. I will refer to a couple of documents from outside of my Department. In their analysis of the Adoption (Information and Tracing) Bill 2016 introduced by former Minister, Katherine Zappone, a group of academics brought forward an opinion on the Irish Constitution and EU general data protection regulations. The academics are people well known to us, including Dr. Conor O'Mahony, Dr. Fred Logue, Dr. Maeve O'Rourke, Dr. James Gallen, Dr. Eoin Daly, Máiréad Enright, Dr. Sinéad Ring, Rossa McMahon and Dr. Laura Cahillane. They did a detailed analysis on the previous legislation. It is a lengthy piece, with which, I am sure, members are familiar, but I would like to cite paragraph 30. It states:

Thus, in order for legislation in the area of adoption information and tracing to be deemed unconstitutional, it must be shown that the law is arbitrary and lacks an objective basis. It is on this basis that we submit that the Constitution does permit the Oireachtas to legislate in the manner proposed by several Senators earlier this year: providing automatic access to identifying information for people who were adopted in the past following an information session, and accompanied by a fully resourced voluntary National Adoption Contact Preference Register and voluntary tracing service.

Again, the concept of the information meeting is set out in that detailed piece. I refer also to the draft Bill, namely, the Adoption (Information and Tracing) Bill 2019, that was put forward by the Adoption Rights Alliance in 2019, which was an effort by that organisation, which has been very active in this area, to seek to balance the conflicting rights, the privacy right of a parent with the right to identity of an adopted person. I will set out sections 25(1) to 25(3), inclusive, of that draft Bill:

(1) An tArd-Chláraitheoir shall on an application made in the prescribed manner by an adopted person, a record of whose birth is kept by an tArd-Chláraitheoir and who has reached the age of 18 years supply to that person on payment of the prescribed fee (if any) such information as is necessary to enable that person to obtain a certified copy of the record of his/her birth.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Independent Information Service to provide an information session to the adopted person, the format of which shall be prescribed in consultation with the Adoption Advisory Group. The information session shall serve the following purposes:

(a) To inform the adopted person about the records held by the Independent Information Service about them;

(b) To provide the adopted person with information on how to read and understand adoption records;

(c) To inform the adopted person of the existence of the tracing service provided by the Agency;

(d) To inform the adopted person of the existence of the National Adoption Contact Preference Register.

(3) An tArd-Chláraitheoir shall not supply a person who was adopted before the date on which this Act was passed with any information under subsections (1) and (2) of this section unless that person has attended an information session as prescribed under subsection (3) of this section.

It is important to make the point that in terms of this effort to address issues with the previous legislation - I regret Deputy Bacik is leaving because I am about to cite her - Deputy Bacik stated:

the Minister could make provision for an option, such as that provided for in Averil Power's Bill, that those who do not wish to sign [an] undertaking[s] would have an alternative option, such as a meeting a social worker or counsellor, as provided for. Provision for such a meeting would have to ensure that it would not become unduly burdensome on those seeking to avail of the option, but this is a simple and practical way to get around this difficulty.

Two years later, Deputy Bacik and colleagues brought forward an information session almost identical to the information session provided for in this legislation. It is important to put that on record because there is a sense out there that this is some crude mechanism that is being introduced to inflict further injury and insult on adopted people when it is a mechanism that has been suggested by a range of highly knowledgeable sources to address that really difficult and tricky situation we are grasping with, namely, how to reconcile those two sets of privacy rights.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

If I may, I would like to come in on that point before I have to leave to go to the Dáil Chamber. It is a case of unfortunate timing. The Minister is quoting back to me, as I had anticipated. I have been measured in my comments. I acknowledge that this is a far preferable option that the Minister is presenting us with as a means of balancing rights. A few years ago, when we proposed the information session as an alternative to the signing of the statutory declaration and so on, that would have been preferable but things have moved on. Just as incremental change becomes embedded and then more radical change is necessary, so too with the journey of this legislation, if I might put it that way. It started out with a whole series of different conditions being placed on access to records.

At the point I put forward the information session, I was working very closely with the former Minister, Katherine Zappone, to try to achieve a compromise in order that we could get the legislation through. That was the intent. That was everyone's desire at the time, most of all adopted persons. We did work on different methods of doing that but at the time, the information session was opposed by the Attorney General as being unduly protective of the privacy rights of the birth mother. The reality is we could not get that passed. Clearly, things have shifted at the Attorney General's office, but so too have they shifted in terms of our understanding of the rights of identity or of privacy rights. The I.O'T v. B. case is now even more dated. There is no specific right of privacy in the Constitution. We are still relying on that interpretation in I.O'T v. B. and, clearly, the Attorney General's view has changed over the years. It is fair to say that in terms of what would have been acceptable and preferable some years ago, the understanding has moved on. That is the spirit in which I offered these amendments. It is the spirit of our consensus in the pre-legislative scrutiny in terms of the registered post option put forward in the report. I hope to return to the meeting.

Deputy Holly Cairns

I would like to come in on a couple of things the Minister said, including that this could be a constitutional problem.

I do not think that anyone for a second believes we would have to change the Constitution to allow people to exercise a right they ultimately should and do already have. We had that conversation around the general data protection regulation, GDPR, and law. There is a recognition now that GDPR applies here, therefore, people have a right to this information. Saying there is a constitutional barrier is ridiculous. There is no constitutional barrier to people accessing their information. It is also acting like this Bill is doing them some kind of favour. Ultimately, it is worth questioning whether we even need this Bill and legislation. If we just acknowledged people's rights to their information, we would not be sitting here having long debates about these things.

The other false narrative that is continuously spun, to the point where even Opposition Deputies are saying the same lines, is that we must balance the right of the parent to his or her privacy with the right of the adopted person's right to information. That is not based on any kind of reality. What we heard at committee during pre-legislative scrutiny was that more people are registering a no-contact preference who are the adopted people, and not the parents. There is this constant narrative that what the Government and this legislation is doing is trying to protect the parents who have a right to privacy. Where has that come from? We hear these constant lines that are based on no reality, as far as I can tell. After what was a long process of pre-legislative scrutiny with different representative organisations and people appearing before the committee, of course, we had loads of personal engagement with individuals who have been affected by this. The narrative creates this feeling of trying to protect parents from their children. It is unnecessary and untrue.

Finally, the Minister made a point at the end of his contribution about section 30. He referenced people like Dr. Maeve O'Rourke and Dr. Fred Logue and suggested that an information session is a must-have. That is really the opposite of what we heard from experts. He said it has been recommended by many reputable sources. We heard it refuted by many reputable sources at committee that we do not need that mandatory information session. That seems to me like cherry-picking information to argue for something that is unnecessary and which people have highlighted repeatedly. It is insulting for them. As Deputy Bacik said, the suggestion, which the Minister cited, came from years ago when people were still trying to get this legislation moving.

We have come a long way from there, and not only we in the Oireachtas but the whole country, in terms of saying enough of these different barriers and things being put in place, and these kinds of narratives around people's situations. It is not necessary and often also not true. The Minister has done much work in this area since he took office. If there is one thing he could change in this legislation, this seems to be the thing that means so much to people. Will he please consider it? I do not think we have to stick to it. That is what we heard from many experts in this area at pre-legislative scrutiny. I am pleading with the Minister to reconsider this provision

Deputy Mark Ward

I agree with what the Minister said earlier that adopted people have been historically failed by the State over the years in their right to find their identity. Deputy Bacik asked a question earlier, which I do not think was answered. What happens if somebody cannot take part in this information session for either mental, physical or personal reasons? He or she will lose his or her right to this identity again. That is the point I wanted to make. I call on the Minister to reconsider this again.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

The point has been well made regarding the problems with this part of these amendments. With regard to GDPR, was that in place at the time this was going through the Seanad? The GDPR obviously has an impact on this, which supersedes the court case to which the Minister referred. It is a right for people to access their personal information. That must have a bearing on the Supreme Court case as well. That should be taken into account.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

In response to the question by Deputies Bacik and Ward, if somebody chooses not to participate in the processes set out in the legislation, he or she continues to have the right to submit an essay or application under GDPR, as anybody has. That right remains with them but the right of access to information under GDPR is not absolute in the same way it will be under this legislation. A balancing test under Article 15(4) of GDPR still applies. We are providing for the absolute right to access information in all situations in this legislation. To address Deputy Cairns's question, that is why we are having this legislation. We are taking away that discretion of the data controller to refuse somebody access to his or her information. That is why this legislation is necessary.

It is really important that we address the argument in terms of what Deputy Cairns said, which is that this desire to protect the constitutional rights of parents is not based in reality. It is based in reality. Right now, we have a national adoption contact preference register. Approximately 4,500 parents whose children were adopted have signed on to that and the vast majority of them are seeking contact with their children. Only 1% or 99 people have signed a no-contact preference on the existing national adoption contact preference register. I take the number of parents who do not want contact with their children from that and that is not all; that is a portion of people who have signed this. It is tiny. They are still rights holders, however. Each of those 99 people still have a right to exercise their constitutional right to privacy. If they decide that they do not want contact with the child they gave up for adoption, that is their right.

Deputy Cairns asked where this came from. She said many different groups came in and spoke before the committee. Absolutely, and I have spoken with them too. However, these women do not want to be known. They are not going to appear before the Oireachtas joint committee for whatever reason because that identifies them. Again, it comes back to the history of adoption in this country and the secrecy that surrounds it. These women continue to exist in secret. We must remember that the information session will only apply where a parent has signed a no-contact preference. Based on what we are seeing from the existing national adoption contact preference register, it will only be a tiny proportion of the overall number of applications under this legislation where an information session is required. In those situations, however, it is an exercise of a constitutional right. It is the exercise of an individual who has proactively decided that he or she wants to provide some protection of his or her anonymity. The fact is that they do not come into the Oireachtas joint committee or form advocacy groups. We cannot let their desire and need for secrecy eliminate them from this conversation. They do exist. Their existence is demonstrated by the existing no-contact preference register. I have received letters from women who have set out their concerns to me as parents. That is what we are trying to achieve here. We are trying to achieve a recognition of their constitutional right to privacy but doing so in such a way that in every situation, the adopted person gets full access to his or her information.

Deputy Holly Cairns

For clarity, the Minister said 1% of the people who are on that register have registered a no-contact preference.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

On the current national adoption preference register of the birth relatives, 4,495 birth relatives have registered. Of those, 99 have registered a no-contact preference.

Deputy Holly Cairns

That is 99 people. What percentage of people? That is not parents; that is relatives.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

That is birth relatives.

Deputy Holly Cairns

It is not specific to parents, which is the point I was making. We heard at committee that there are more adopted people who want to exercise their right to privacy rather than their right to information than there are parents. All we hear from the Government, and now again from the Minister, is the parent's right to privacy. There are more children, many of whom are now adults, obviously, who want to exercise that right. Nobody has an objection to people exercising their right to privacy. That is not what I am getting at. I am talking about the weight the Minister is putting on that versus all the other rights we are dealing with in this committee.

We are talking about 1% of relatives. How is so much of the focus on this when we are also dealing with all of the other rights that have been disregarded for decades? It is just confusing that there is so much emphasis on it.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

As the Deputy noted, for decades, we have not provided the rights to adopted people and we are doing so with this legislation because in the context-----

Deputy Holly Cairns

And to their parents

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

-----of the discussions we have had, we are providing full right of access to a birth certificate, birth and care information, etc. We are doing all those things we failed to do in the past. That absolute prioritisation of the privacy right of the parent has been inverted and now there is an absolute right to all the information but we cannot remove the privacy rights entirely from the equation-----

Deputy Holly Cairns

Of course

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

-----because if a court is scrutinising this in the future and we believe the information meeting where the no-contact preference of the parent is conveyed - all we are asking is that the no-contact preference of the parent is conveyed to the adopted person with no undertakings or anything more than that - is necessary to ensure that in the balancing of rights, some recognition of the privacy right of the parent is provided for in this legislation.

Deputy Holly Cairns

We all know there are different ways to convey things. We did it again - talking about the right to privacy of the parent and never referencing the right to privacy of adopted people as well. That is what we heard more in the committee - there were more adopted people who wanted to exercise their right to privacy than parents whose children were forcibly removed from their care. I am just saying the narrative is unnecessary. The Minister is saying he is trying to protect the privacy rights of the parents. What about the privacy rights of adopted people? Why does he never discuss them? It is framing a false narrative all the time and it is worth noting that.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

Because nothing in this legislation interferes with the privacy rights of adopted people.

Deputy Holly Cairns

They can register a no-contact preference as well.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

They can.

Deputy Holly Cairns

In the same way that a parent could do.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

A parent does not get an automatic right of access to information about an adopted person under this legislation. An adopted person does get an automatic right of access to information about the parent under this legislation. This is why there must be a mechanism to ensure that the privacy rights as represented by a no-contact preference are protected.

Deputy Holly Cairns

I must go to the Dáil Chamber.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 110:

In page 15, line 15, to delete "or, where section 8 applies, the Authority".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 111:

In page 15, line 20, to delete "and sections 7 and 8".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 112:

In page 15, lines 22 and 23, to delete "or, where section 8 applies, the Authority".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 113:

In page 15, to delete lines 24 to 31.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

I move amendment No. 114:

In page 15, line 25, to delete "specify" and substitute "specify, and".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

I move amendment No. 115:

In page 15, line 27, to delete "this Part, and" and substitute "this Part.".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

I move amendment No. 116:

In page 15, to delete lines 28 to 31.

Amendment agreed to.

Vice Chairman

Amendments Nos. 117, 146, 352a and 359a are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 117:

In page 15, after line 37, to insert the following:

"(5) Where no entry is present in the register of births, the Authority shall seize all records relating to the relevant person’s adoption and open an investigation into what

transpired. The relevant person will be kept informed and will be consulted throughout the course of the investigation.".

I will speak to amendments Nos. 117 and 146. These amendments are linked. Amendment No. 117 inserts a new provision to the effect that where there is no entry present in the register of births, the authority has the power to seize all records relating to the relevant person's adoption and open an investigation. We believe it is important to ensure that any anomalies in a person's records are properly investigated.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

It makes sure that if the documents are not in their possession, measures should be taken to ensure they are taken control of so that they can be investigated because it is vitally important. There are a number of documents outside the agencies.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

I will address amendments Nos. 117 and 146. These amendments would insert a clause into sections 6 and 10. The amendments require that where no information is available, upon application by an affected person, the authority must seize all records and conduct an investigation into what transpired. Unfortunately, I cannot accept these amendments. Under section 63 of the Civil Registration Act 2004, a person can apply to the register to correct a record and under section 65 of the same Act, the Ard-Chláraitheoir is empowered to conduct an inquiry to correct registration of a life event. What is being provided for here does not need to be undertaken, especially on a mandatory basis, where a person may not wish for further investigation. An adopted person subject to an illegal birth registration may not wish for such an investigation. A person who was the subject of an illegal birth registration may not wish their parents - the people they have seen as their parents all their lives - to be subject to an investigation, which would be mandatory under this provision. It is completely out of the ordinary when compared to what we have been looking at - the idea of a mandatory investigation without any understanding of its size and scope, what it would do and what its consequences would be. I cannot support this amendment.

Vice Chairman

How stands the amendment?

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I will press the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 118:

In page 16, line 1, to delete “and sections 7 and 8”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 7

Deputy Ivana Bacik

I move amendment No. 119:

In page 16, lines 20 and 21, to delete “, and an information session has already taken place”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

I move amendment No. 120:

In page 16, lines 23 and 24, to delete “and no information session has taken place”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

I move amendment No. 121:

In page 16, line 28, to delete “paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) of”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

I move amendment No. 122:

In page 17, to delete lines 1 to 7.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Question, "That section 7 stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.

SECTION 8

Deputy Ivana Bacik

I move amendment No. 123:

In page 17, lines 29 and 30, to delete “, and an information session has already taken place”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

I move amendment No. 124:

In page 17, lines 32 and 33, to delete “and no information session has taken place”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

I move amendment No. 125:

In page 17, line 34, to delete “paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) of”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

I move amendment No. 126:

In page 17, to delete lines 38 and 39, and in page 18, to delete lines 1 to 5.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Question, "That section 8 stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.

SECTION 9

Vice Chairman

Amendments Nos. 127 to 130, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 128 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 127. Amendments Nos. 127 to 130, inclusive, may be discussed together.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I move amendment No. 127:

In page 18, to delete line 13.

This amendment is calling for the deletion of line 13, that is, section 9(2)(a), requiring that an application "be in such form as the relevant body concerned may specify". I do not think the relevant body should specify the information concerned or how it is conveyed. I am recommending that is removed and that the information should be provided.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

I propose to move amendments Nos. 128 to 130, inclusive. In response to Deputy Pringle, the line that amendment No. 127 seeks to delete gives the body to which these applications will be made the ability to construct the form through which the applications will be made. If that body will not set the application form, I do not know who will. As this amendment seeks to take out the most basic of administrative elements, I oppose amendment No. 127.

Amendments Nos. 128 to 130, inclusive, concern the requirement for a person to provide explicit consent to the use of their information when applying for birth information. The manner in which the original draft of the legislation provided for the use of consent, as was flagged by some advocacy groups, was not fully in compliance with the proper reading of the GDPR. Amendments Nos. 114 to 116, inclusive, which have already been agreed to, also dealt with that issue. Amendment No. 130 deletes section 9(2)(c), which requires that the application is accompanied by the applicant's written consent to process his or her contact details. We are removing that because it would not be fully compliant with GDPR. That is just a piece of housekeeping but it is important nevertheless to ensure the legislation is compatible with GDPR.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

I move amendment No. 128:

In page 18, line 13, to delete “specify,” and substitute “specify, and”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

I move amendment No. 129:

In page 18, line 16, to delete “this Part, and” and substitute “this Part.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

I move amendment No. 130:

In page 18, to delete lines 17 to 19.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 131:

In page 18, to delete lines 27 to 40, and in page 19, to delete lines 1 and 2.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

I move amendment No. 132:

In page 18, lines 38 and 39, to delete “, and an information session has already taken place”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

I move amendment No. 133:

In page 19, lines 1 and 2, to delete “and no information session has taken place”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 134:

In page 19, to delete lines 3 to 8.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

I move amendment No. 135:

In page 19, lines 5 and 6, to delete “paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) of”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 136:

In page 19, to delete lines 9 to 13.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

This amendment seeks the deletion of section 9(6), which empowers a relevant body to release the birth information to the relevant person immediately in all situations where an information session is not required. This amendment is undoing what the Bill is all about, which is the immediate release of information, so I oppose it.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I move amendment No. 137:

In page 19, to delete lines 14 to 19.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

This is about the process that a relevant body should follow when an information session is required. In our view it is essential to the functioning of the legislation in providing for the balancing mechanism. We have to oppose the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 138:

In page 19, to delete line 25 and substitute the following:

"(c) a record created or held by any institution, agency or individual involved in illegal birth registrations.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 139:

In page 19, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:

"(10) Where no birth information is available, the Authority shall seize all records relating to the relevant person’s adoption and/or illegal birth registration and open an investigation into what transpired. The applicant will be kept informed and will be consulted throughout the course of the investigation.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 10

Vice Chairman

Amendments Nos. 140 to 142, inclusive, 145, 199 to 201, inclusive, and 208 are related. Amendments Nos. 141 and 142 are physical alternatives to amendment No. 140. Amendments Nos. 200 and 201 are physical alternatives to amendment No. 199. Amendments Nos. 140 to 142, inclusive, 145, 199 to 201, inclusive, and 208 may be discussed together.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I move amendment No. 140:

In page 20, to delete lines 11 to 24.

I will speak specifically on amendments Nos. 145 and 208. They go back to the same arguments on the mandatory information session. This is relevant to people aged between 16 and 18 but the same arguments apply. We have made our points in this regard.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

Amendment No. 199 is the substantive amendment I seek to make. It is to give effect to the recommendation we made in the pre-legislative scrutiny report to replace the mandatory information session with a requirement that the authority sends a registered post, or other recorded delivery, letter to applicants setting out the relevant information. I apologise because I had to leave in the middle of the debate earlier to go to statements in the Dáil. It was terrible timing. I am sorry I did not hear the full response the Minister gave.

Without labouring the point, as I said we have gone through many different iterations with this legislation as we all know. There have been many different attempts to achieve the balance between constitutional rights of identity and information versus the right to privacy. As I said earlier, things have moved on. The advice of the Attorney General has changed over the years in successive iterations of the Bill. We are at a point where a mandatory information session should no longer be required as a condition of access to identity information, even if that mandatory information session is in much preferable format now to what it was and even if it may be carried out by phone and not by a social worker and all of the welcome improvements that have been made.

The committee, having heard the evidence and having heard from stakeholders, still believed there was a preferable means of achieving the balancing of rights and that this was through a prepaid registered post mechanism. It is an acknowledgement there is some need to balance rights. It is also an acknowledgement that the understanding of privacy and identity and conflicting rights has moved on since we last debated this type of Bill. We should be able to move beyond a mandatory information session in any form. I have tried in one amendment to set out as best I can a way of delivering on the recommendation we made. I know we have had the debate already but I believe this would be preferable to the current mandatory information session.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

I absolutely understand with regard to the delayed vote earlier and the importance of the debate in the Dáil. It is unfortunate and I understand it. It is not my preference either that I am speaking to people as they are running out the door. It is important that I flag this as I was directly namechecking the Deputy.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

I am grateful the Minister did that.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

It would not have been nice for Deputy Bacik to have had to run and then for me to have made the point.

If we accept there is a need for the balancing of constitutional rights, the question then is what is the best way to do this. I have set forward the reasons I believe, and more importantly why others believe, the information session and the provision of the conveying of the preference of the parent to the adopted person is the best way to go. We discussed with the Attorney General and counsel the option of a letter. It is not that we did not consider it. The issue has been considered. There are practical issues with a registered letter, particularly in the context of the amendment tabled by Deputy Bacik that everything would then have to be done by post. The issuing of information would have to be done by post because it would have to contain the registered letter and the bundle of information. Plenty of people want their information via email. This means two sets of information would have to be sent out. There are practical issues for data controllers in all of this.

The Deputy is right that the balancing mechanism has gone through various iterations. Each iteration has brought the balance more in favour of the adopted persons and their right to identity but at the same time has lessened the privacy rights of the parent.

If that balance continues to move over, there comes a point where the privacy right will no longer be recognised by a court as a proper defence in terms of proportionality. I hope we both agree on that. In terms of what is essential here, the no-contact preference is the final protection of the privacy right and that must be conveyed to the adopted person. Is the best way to convey that a registered letter, where we will never know if the person actually read it or saw the line about the no-contact preference? If there is a phone call, a physical meeting or an online meeting, we know the preference has been conveyed. I am making changes and I will speak to them in a moment but that is the core element of what is necessary to ensure the right to privacy is sufficiently present and balanced in all of this. When a no-contact preference is stated by a parent, it must be directly conveyed to the adopted person. That is not the case with a registered letter. While we considered the registered letter, we believe direct conveyance of the no-contact preference is the correct way to go.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

We are agreed that there have been lots of variations of this and that the understanding of how best to balance rights has changed and developed. The problem remains that the mandatory information session strikes many adopted persons as an unduly paternalistic approach. It is still balanced too much on that side. It harks back to when the view was taken that we could not give people access to information and there had to be conditions. It is still a condition on access. In a previous debate on this, Professor Conor O'Mahony talked about privacy rights trumping identity rights. It still seems like that is what is happening with the mandatory information session. We must trust people. We trust people who receive a court summons by registered post. There is a point where you have to trust people. The Minister raised a couple of practical issues around email or registered post. Those are very easily surmountable because the provision I have set out simply states that the statement of information will go by registered post. All the other information can go by email or any other means. It is very easy to get around that problem. We have other protections for privacy rights. We have the age limit and the contact preference register. We have built into this statutory framework other protections and recognitions of that right.

I will come back to the two practical points I have raised, which also go to the kernel of the issue about an information session. First, what if an adopted person does not wish to take the call? Will they simply not have access to their identity information? It is a condition on their access and it is not possible to see it any other way. Granted, it is a much reduced condition compared to what was in previous versions of the Bill. Second, what happens if there is a dispute or disagreement over what was said in the phone call? A written statement setting out information, however it is delivered, is far clearer evidence that that information was delivered. I am concerned that issues could arise around the manner in which information is conveyed in that phone call and the lack of any evidentiary back-up for it. Those are two issues we discussed in the committee and it was one of the reasons all its members, including Government representatives, agreed on that recommendation. That is what I am trying to give effect to in amendment No. 199. I would love to hear the Minister's response to the point that this is a condition, albeit a more minimal one, and as to what would happen if there were some disagreement over the phone call.

Deputy Kathleen Funchion

I support what Deputy Bacik is saying. I fundamentally disagree with the mandatory information session. Even setting it aside from the point of view of principles and what is right, from a practical point of view for the State, having this meeting in preference to a physical letter opens up a whole can of "he said, she said". We all know the idea of registered post is that if somebody signs for it, he or she has received it and if that person does not, it gets sent back. I do not think there is a responsibility on the State to ensure the person has taken in that information. Someone could go to a meeting and put his or her hands over his or her ears and not take in what has been said. If something is sent in a letter and somebody signs for it to say he or she has received it, surely the State's obligation in relation to privacy is fulfilled. No matter what way it is said, anything else will always be interpreted by people who are adopted as the State being distrustful and saying it knows best. It is very difficult for anyone to understand it in any other way. I feel very strongly on this. Deputy Bacik made a lot of good points and I support what she said.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

We do trust people. We trust adopted people. That is why they are being provided with access to all information. Nothing is held back any more. We trust them with the name of their mother, and of their father if it is on record, and the names of all their relatives. In the past they were not trusted with that. We trust them and this legislation provides access to that information. They do not have to sign anything. There is no criminal prohibition if, having heard the no-contact preference, they decide to ignore it. There is no consequence set out in this legislation. I do not believe they will do that but there is nothing there to prevent it because we trust people. It is right that we are discussing the sense, belief and understanding of the adopted person. However, we have to recognise there is a set of people - it is a very small set but they are there - and mothers who desperately want to maintain their secrecy. They exist. We have to understand that, through this legislation, we will be revealing their names to their children and for a small set of people, primarily women, that will be deeply distressing. We need to recognise that we are dramatically limiting their privacy rights. The question is how we ensure that their privacy rights, though limited, are still somehow present in this process. The State has a responsibility here because, inasmuch as we have a responsibility to provide access to the right to identity, which we are doing under this legislation, an Irish person's privacy right is a constitutional one and the State has to protect that as well. We have an obligation on both sides to protect rights and we are balancing those two sets of rights. That is difficult but we believe this is the best way to do that.

The Deputy raised concerns about disagreements about what is said and the information. There is not information in the call. What the call will involve is the list of points set out in section 17(2). That is what the call is, and nothing more. The information will be conveyed separately, either by post or email, after the information session has taken place. There does not need to be any dispute there because all the designated person is conveying to the relevant person are the points set out in section 17(2). That will be the end of it. The information session will then be complete and the adopted person will get full access to all information.

Deputy Bacik also asked about what would happen if an adopted person decided they did not wish to engage with this process. That is a right. As I said earlier when the Deputy was not in the room, adopted persons continue to have their rights under the GDPR and can make an application for information under Article 15. However, the issue there is that Article 15.4 still applies and the balancing that has to be undertaken under the GDPR will still apply. What is so important about this legislation is that the balancing does not apply. The adopted person gets full access to all information in all circumstances.

Vice Chairman

There are no more contributors and I am conscious of the time.

I will put the question on amendment No. 140. We will adjourn-----

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

I did not get to speak to amendments Nos. 200 and 201 in terms of the back and forth. I wanted to let Deputy Bacik in. When we come back, will I be able to speak to amendments Nos. 200 and 201? I proposed them but I have not had the opportunity to speak to them yet. I believe I have moved them.

Vice Chairman

We will move them individually as they come up. However, if we are going to be proposing them and discussing them, we should do so before we take the vote. Will the Minister speak to them now, very briefly?

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

Yes. I will bring forward these amendments to change the text in respect of the information session. Currently, the three points of which the designated official will inform the adopted person in the information session are:

(a) the entitlement of the relevant person to obtain, in accordance with this Act, his or her birth certificate, or birth information relating to him or her, as the case may be,

(b) the fact that the parent concerned has stated, in accordance with this Act, that he or she is not willing to be contacted by the relevant person, and

(c) the importance of the relevant person respecting the privacy rights of the parent and the preference of the parent referred to in paragraph (b).

Having listened to contributions from groups during the pre-legislative scrutiny, PLS, process, I understand that section 17(2)(c), in particular, and the fact that in an information session an adopted person will be told of the importance of respecting privacy rights was felt to be condescending and that the adopted person was being spoken down to. I hear that and we have sought to change it. In what we are bringing forward now, section 17(2)(a) remains the same, but we will delete section 17(2)(b) and section 17(2)(c). Instead of those, we will put in:

(b) the fact that—

(i) the parent concerned has exercised his or her entitlement under section 38(11) to state that he or she is not willing to be contacted by the relevant person, and

(ii) the making of that statement by the parent constitutes an exercise by him or her of his or her right to privacy.

There is now no language proposed and the information session will not contain any language where the adopted person is told about the importance of respecting the parent's privacy rights. It is a further dilution of the information session. However, I can understand there was a concern that it was seen as paternalistic, particularly in the context of the designated person speaking to an adopted person. We have sought to improve and address that by the changes brought forward, recognising the importance that the information session has for so many people.

Vice Chairman

I am conscious of time. We are due to end the meeting. Instead of putting the question on amendment No. 140, I will adjourn the meeting now.

In the absence of any disagreement, I take it that is agreed. I thank the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, and his officials for attending today and engaging with the committee.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The select committee adjourned at 6.03 p.m. until 6 p.m. on Wednesday, 9 March 2022.