I apologise if I am delaying matters but we will not have the chance to clarify this in the same way on Report Stage. If somebody is to make a data subject access request on information and they seek information on who has made inquiries into them during a period of time when they were a child in an institution, is it the case that the provisions of this legislation would not in any way impinge on that person having access to that information so that decision is balanced and made separately? That is one example but…

We may as well move on to the other sections but it is not really about whether Article 15 will be limited. The question is whether there will be a danger of Article 15 being interpreted in relation to this Act, which is slightly different. There is an Article 15 process but you do not want an Article 15 process which does not look to each data subject access request but in fact looks to a set of guidance from this legislation. I addressed this point in that specific section earlier and I will be coming back to tha…

I move amendment No. 24: In page 12, line 21, to delete “Regulation;” and substitute the following: “Regulation. For the avoidance of doubt, personal data as defined under the Regulation includes, in relation to a relevant person under this Act, all records relating to the adoption or informal care arrangement of a relevant person, regardless of whether that data is shared with another person, including but is not limited to: (a) personal data in terms of the relevant person’s physical, mental, and physiological id…

I move amendment No. 25: In page 13, line 14, after “incorrect” to insert “or illegal”.

I move amendment No. 26: In page 14, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: “(j) any person or organisation involved in facilitating adoptions, or family separation;”. Amendments Nos. 26 to 28, inclusive, all refer to expanding the definition of "secondary information source". Currently, there is a list of various Departments, registered adoption societies and other accredited bodies included and there is provision for the Minister to prescribe separate persons, but I believe there are wider categories th…

I appreciate that the Minister has the power to designate but I am concerned that he, or whichever other Minister down the line, may choose not to use that power. There is no guarantee for the Oireachtas or the Seanad that the Minister will, in fact, designate religious orders or psychiatric institutions. I am concerned that the tone of the Minister's response seems to suggest a kind of prioritisation with regard to the sources we know are relevant and so forth. There is going to be a large volume to deal with and …

I made it quite clear that my concern is where it is informal and where people are not registered, etc. That is the concern about where gaps arise. It is in relation to those who are not in the space of the registered adoption society or of accredited bodies. I would put it to the Minister that there is a gap, even in the example of psychiatric institutions that I have given to him. It is in that context that I suggest, rather than waiting to address such a gap under section 43(2), and rather than putting a burden …

I move amendment No. 27: “In page 14, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: “(j) a relevant religious order;”.”

I move amendment No. 28: “In page 14, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: “(j) relevant psychiatric institutions;”.”

I move amendment No. 29: In page 14, line 13, after “incorrect” to insert “or illegal”. I withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to reintroduce it.

I move amendment No. 30: In page 14, line 36, to delete “in respect of which” and substitute “regardless of whether”. This amendment is around the insertion of additional institutions. I am slightly widening the provision by replacing "in respect of which" with "regardless of whether" a public body has or had a regulatory or inspection function. The Minister's powers to add an additional institution should not be constrained by whether a public body had a regulatory or inspection function. There may be institutions…

The concern is that, in the past, if an institution or public body did not adopt or perform a regulatory or inspection function, it could end up slipping out. I will reserve the right to come back to this on Report Stage. In general, it would be better to provide in the Bill the widest possible scope rather than relying on persons having to prove the exceptions to the rule because we have had many years of that. That is why in many of the provisions we are putting forward we are going wide. Yes, there is the risk o…

It is not agreed. Amendments Nos. 33 to 39, inclusive, 43 to 46, inclusive, and 49 to 51, inclusive, are all consequential on and related to amendment No. 69. I wonder, therefore-----

We are discussing amendments that are consequential on an amendment that has not been discussed yet.

Sure.

This grouping contains a few amendments. I think I support the amendment on age proposed by Senator Warfield. It relates to other amendments we have discussed to ensure that information can be accessed as early as possible. Persons who are 16 years of age should be able to have those records. That could be very important to a person coming up to that age of 18 when people make many choices about their lives. It also allows them to access that relevant information at a time when they have access to various relevant …

I accept that matters have moved on with regard to the provisions, but I was here in 2017. I want to acknowledge former Senator Bacik, who, along with me and a number of others, spent many hours with the then Minister. We were told at that time that a veto was required by the Constitution. We were emphatically told that the Constitution's interpretation of privacy at that time, which, again, we argued was not even consistent with the right to the private life of a person, was of a desire for the non-sharing of info…

As the Minister requested, I will clarify the position. Amendment No. 32 relates to a situation where someone makes an application to the register of births but no entry is found. Where a relevant body has received an application and does not hold the birth certificate, it will inform the applicant of that fact in writing and without delay. A person being told that there is no record of him or her is significant, and we suggested that this should trigger an investigation in each instance. I had asked that if the Mi…

I move amendment No. 32: In page 15, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following: “(5) 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 relevant person will be kept informed and will be consulted throughout the course of the investigation.”.

I do not see any alternative as there seems to be no engagement on the matter.