It is a very large group and they are quite different topics. I find the Minister's response unacceptable. The definition of "genetic relative", and the Minister did not address the question, includes full-blood or half-blood relative. That is not a very wide definition. I do not understand why there is still this lingering theme of how much it can be shut down. It is still there in that definition of "genetic relative". It is the sibling, uncle, aunt or first cousin of his or her mother or father. Is a cousin of t…

I will be frank with the Minister; that is completely wrong. It is the same argument I had back in 2017 when I listened to the exact same discussions about birth certificates. I sat in ministerial offices hearing advice from Ministers. This was back when there was the assumption of a preference for privacy versus identity, with the assumption being made wrongly and, in fact, interfering with private life. This Bill wrongly assumes that someone who has made inquiries or visited somebody does not want their name rele…

Senator McGreehan made a point about the genetic relative. I understand it is relevant in the medical area and in the question of illegal adoptions and that. There is a purpose to genetic relative in the Bill. The problem I have is there is no parallel definition of "relative" and that it is genetic relative that is applied as the limitation in terms of information on who has enquired. I have not really heard from the Minister why that limitation is being placed on being told who has enquired about a person. The Mi…

I have a question for the Minister. I appreciate he has indicated that he will go back to the Parliamentary Counsel and consider the release of the names of the persons. Going back can sometimes be fruitful and I know the previous Minister went back a number of times on these issues. In fact, the situation did eventually evolve. Will the Minister also go back and inquire as to why information in respect of a visit or inquiry having happened is limited to a genetic relative?

An answer to that would make it easier for me. Will the Minister also go back to the question as to why a report of a visit or inquiry is limited to a genetic relative?

The Minister has said he will consider the question. My concern does not relate only to the definition of "genetic relative". My question is why we would limit that information to genetic relatives. However, since the Minister is reviewing the matter, I will not press the amendment at this time.

I move amendment No. 10: In page 10, line 36, to delete “genetic”.

I move amendment No. 11: In page 10, line 36, after “relative” to insert “or any other person”.

I move amendment No. 12: In page 11, lines 1 and 2, to delete all words from and including “but” in line 1 down to and including line 2.

I move amendment No. 13: In page 11, lines 1 and 2, to delete all words from and including “but” in line 1 down to and including line 2 and substitute “which shall include the name of the other person where that is known,”.

Earlier in this debate, on Second Stage, the Minister began with an apology, in part, in respect of illegal adoptions. We have been speaking about these illegal adoptions but there is no reference anywhere in the Bill to "illegal". As Senator Boyhan says, it was illegal and to put in "incorrect" is insufficient. It simply does not cover everything and "incorrect" is not an umbrella under which "illegal" can fit. It is a different thing. It is giving an excuse and providing a new frame, which is "incorrect", that ca…

A lot of the conversation has related to amendment No. 14 but I will point out that a very large suite of amendments are combined here. There has been discussion of the questions of prosecutions, a tribunal and an investigation. These are all things that should be considered but, to be clear, it is not simply a question of whether there should be prosecutions for everything. That is a separate conversation. The problem with the Bill as it stands is that access to anything it provides and people's route to any of th…

However, it does not include "illegal" in the context of the reference to "false or misleading". It is relevant to those who have been affected by the St. Patrick’s Guild investigations, for example. For such a person, maybe his or her registration is in fact being investigated or is recognised as being illegal. Is the Minister suggesting that this is encompassed by the references to "incorrect" and "false or misleading"? Is he saying that the word "incorrect" fully encompasses “"illegal"? If "incorrect" encompasse…

I wish to address what was done by people, such as in the example of St. Patrick’s Guild. We know it was illegal. It has already been clearly determined and identified as illegal. Under this legislation, however, a person who wishes to access their records will be describing this illegal act as being "incorrect", meaning "false or misleading". I would point out that we are putting in a definition of "incorrect birth registration information". We are putting that in as a frame that can be used, and is relevant for m…

I wish to speak to amendment No.17. I am conscious that we have focused on the issue of "illegal" but amendment No. 17 and some of the other Sinn Féin amendments in this group simply suggest that the word "information" would be replaced by "records" so as to remove any linguistic ambiguity. The aim is to ensure that people's medical information is considered their personal data and that they have a fundamental right to access, not just the information contained in a record but the record itself. This has been addre…

I would like if the Minister would address my amendments. He spoke about the fact that substituting "illegal" for "incorrect" could be seen as narrowing, but he did not address my amendments that add the term "illegal". He mentioned that the term "illegal" would create a higher bar for access and so forth, but I do not believe that is correct in terms of my amendments where there is the term "incorrect" and I add the words "or illegal". Again, all of the provisions the Bill provides in respect of the term "incorrec…

I appreciate the Minister's bona fides in terms of his apologies and the actions of the Government. Ministers and Governments come and go and legislation stays, however, unless it is changed. I have not sought to delete the word "incorrect". I still have concerns. I am speaking not in terms of consequence or prosecution but in terms of access points again. It is that same issue of access points. The fact is that somebody seeking to use this Bill will be describing a birth registration in relation to them, which may…

I am not opposing the insertion of "false" or "misleading" under "incorrect", just to be clear.

I move amendment No. 16: In page 11, line 31, after “incorrect” to insert “or illegal”.

I move amendment No. 17: In page 11, line 31, to delete “information” and substitute “records”.