I move amendment No. 19: In page 5, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “(2) The provisions set out in this section shall apply as if the specified Minister were a reference to the Minister and the Agency and the Authority.” I regret that last amendment. It was unfortunate that the Minister did not agree to it. Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are related and both address what I think might be a mistake in the drafting. I am very concerned about the potential implications. This is not something anyone has lobb…

It does not extend things. It is simply that they are happening from two different locations. The section states: "as if the reference, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), to specified Minister were a reference to the Agency." That relates to the database and related records and the other documents are with the Minister. It seems there are two interpretations of "the Minister" for the purposes of section 45 of the 2004 Act. There is one section 45 interpretation of "the Minister" in respect of the documents that he…

No, but it would be a split. My concern is that while the number of documents is the same, there are two different directions in which a future tribunal might go. I want the Minister to have a full and comprehensive set of documents and I would prefer if the tribunal were able to access documents from a single location in an appropriate way. I appreciate the unintended consequence, which was my initial concern. I realise that is not the issue but my concern about the splitting of responsibilities remains. We have s…

I move amendment No. 20: In page 5, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: "(2) Section 45 of the Act of 2004 shall have dual application to both the Minister and the Agency.".

I will support the amendment, which relates to the same purpose as my amendments in the grouping, Nos. 36 to 38, inclusive. They seek to ensure the Minister will not tie his hands by limiting the materials that he might get. My amendments seek to ensure he will not explicitly limit himself in the wording of the Long Title, where it would be unnecessary. If he is to make further changes, he might consider changing the Title to ensure he will not limit what might be accessed. The point of my amendments is almost the …

I think the Minister has the powers but I want it to be made more clear. I am not seeking to constrain him. He will have the opportunity to amend the Title, if he so wishes, when he brings the Bill to the Dáil. The Bill, to a large degree, relates to the depositing of documents. I wanted to ensure that in processing, such as through the data processor relationships I had mentioned that might need to be put in place, there would be copies of the documents. If changes are made after discussions with the Attorney Gene…

I cannot pre-empt what the Minister might need to put into the Long Title, according to the amendments he might make.

That is perfect.

I support both of these amendments. The Minister indicated earlier that a form of index is available, but there are a few crucial questions in that regard. This is one of the fundamental asks. We know there are thousands of documents of extraordinarily diverse nature. It is important that we know exactly what we are dealing with so that we know the appropriate way to deal with these documents. It is important that there should be a single index. For the same reasons that we wanted a single repository, there must be…

I want to make the same point. First, there is a general concern about bad practice, and that bad practice is more of a concern today because the main subject matter of the Bill is so sensitive and is a matter of such huge concern. However, there is also a concern that we do not go down the route taken in the United States where there is legislation that amalgamates school meals and gun law, for example, and everything else gets thrown in together. This can create a fractious and inappropriate dynamic whereby, in f…

I support the amendment and the idea of a legislative review as it would be appropriate. From the first part of our discussions today the Minister will have heard the concerns and context for the creation of the 2004 Act. It came from a situation where there were legitimate concerns about the former mechanisms. Equally true is the fact that the world has moved on substantially since 2004. The GDPR has been mentioned extensively from which there are data protection and other rights. The rights of the child are also …

I move amendment No. 30: In page 5, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following: “ 8 . The Minister, within 8 months of the passing of this Act, shall publish legislation on the right to information in respect of Mother and Baby Homes, including measures to support access to information on birth, early life, health or family death.”. I want to speak to the wider theme being addressed here. This is one of a suite of amendments that includes amendment No. 29 and amendments Nos. 31 to 34, inclusive. Unfortunately…

I believe we are on amendment No. 30, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. Amendment No. 30 asks that the Minister, within eight months of the passing of this Act, would publish legislation on the right to information in respect of mother and baby homes, including measures to support access to information on birth, early life, health or family death. Others have spoken very eloquently on this issue of family death. Again, it is asking that the Minister would publish legislation. That could take the form of full new legislation or…

I understand that. I agree that it is a wider issue. I also understand that the timeframe may need to be wider again. My amendment No. 34, for example, which set a 12-month timeline and dealt with the wider area of information and tracing, might have been something that was more achievable. Although I cannot put that amendment to the Minister because it is not eligible within the rules of this House, I nonetheless urge him to consider it in the Dáil - again, I have given the Minister the parameters but I have also …

I move amendment No. 35: In page 3, line 8, after “Agency” to insert “and/or the Adoption Authority of Ireland”. The amendment is consequential on the success of an earlier amendment. As the earlier amendment was, unfortunately, unsuccessful, I will withdraw amendment No. 35.

I move amendment No. 36: In page 3, line 13, to delete “other” where it secondly occurs. I will withdraw the amendment for the same reason that I withdrew amendment No. 35.

I move amendment No. 37: In page 3, line 14, after “investigation;” to insert the following: “to provide for appropriate processing of evidence received and documents created by or for said Commission, or copies of the same by bodies designated by the Minister under powers conferred by this Act;”.

I move amendment No. 38: In page 3, line 14, to delete “other”.

The Minister knows my views and all Members have articulated theirs. The Minister has engaged on a number of issues and I urge him to continue to engage in a similar constructive manner with both Deputies and Senators, because when the Minister amends the Bill in the Dáil he will return with it to the Seanad. It would be useful to continue that dialogue to ensure that when he returns, hopefully, we will have an opportunity to see if some of the measures he has promised Senators have been put in their fullest and be…

The fact that the amendment deadline for the Dáil was moved to Monday is important. That is vital for democracy. I hope the Dáil will be able to build on the debate we have had here in terms of its amendments, and that the final product will reflect some of the issues both the Minister and Senators have articulated.