I will speak to amendment No. 2 first. Deputy Collins is right that there is agreement among everyone that there must be parity between physical healthcare and mental healthcare in the operation of advance healthcare directives. I reiterate what I and the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, said on Second Stage. The Minister for Health, Deputy Stephen Donnelly, and I, our respective Departments and the Government are in absolute agreement that this is an issue which has to be addressed as soon as possible. However,…

Amendment No. 35 relates to section 89 of the Act. We are replacing the reference to "the unborn" with "her pregnancy". This means that where there is an application to a court to clarify a matter with regard to an advance healthcare directive, the healthcare needs of the woman's pregnancy will be considered, not those of "the unborn". There is no instruction regarding the rights of the unborn, meaning the advance healthcare directive will apply to a pregnant woman in the same manner as any other person. On the pro…

Is amendment No. 6 included in this grouping?

My apologies. In response to Deputy Duncan Smith, while I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, the Government's position has not changed on this provision since Committee Stage. The amendment being proposed is unusual in terms of legislative norms and we would also see it as unnecessary in order to achieve the desired effect of the provision. Following ratification of the UNCRPD in 2018, Ireland is already bound by the obligations contained in the convention by decision of the Executive. The amendment is …

I move amendment No. 4: In page 6, after line 34, to insert the following: “ Amendment of section 4 of Principal Act 5. Section 4 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) in subsection (1) (i) by the substitution of “sections 37” for “sections 37, 85(6)(b)”, (ii) by the substitution of “in which the following persons are residing or carrying on business at the time the application or appeal concerned is made, or have resided at any time during the period of 3 years immediately prior to the making of the application or …

It is important to state that inherent jurisdiction is controlled by the jurisprudence of the Irish courts. It is important in that context to refer to the case of AC v . Cork University Hospital and the HSE, a very important case that was decided on the whole area of capacity law. It was heard in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and, eventually, the Supreme Court. This case affirmed that constitutional rights cannot be swept away by a piece of legislation, such as wardship. It stated that the law itself must be…

This amendment seeks to replace section 3 of the 2015 Act which sets out the functional capacity model with replacement text on legal capacity. As drafted, the amendment does not fit with the overall architecture of the 2015 Act or the amendment Bill. It would require significant policy drafting to give effect to the proposed amendment. As the functional model is core to what the previous administration tried to achieve with the 2015 Act and what we are trying to achieve with the amendment Bill, that fundamental re…

I regret Deputy Cairns's attempts to put words in my mouth so let me be very clear in what I am saying - I do not believe the 2015 Act is in breach of the UNCRPD. That is my position and the position of the Government. The piece Deputy Cairns quoted was written a year prior to the 2015 Act being drafted and as I have stated, the vice chair of the body that oversees the UNCRPD has complimented our approach to the issue of dealing with capacity. The reason Ireland is seeking to bring this in and is being recognised a…

A number of these amendments are similar to some brought forward on Committee and Report Stages in the Dáil and, unfortunately, I am not in a position to accept them. Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 7 to 9, inclusive, seek to alter the definition of “principal burial land” and the conditions for making a Government order to allow for interventions in cases where inappropriate burials have not been discovered but where the burials relate to a person whose death may have occurred in a violent or unnatural manner, or sudd…

I will speak to why we believe we should not remove the word "manifestly" from the Bill and, as such, are not in a position to accept these amendments. This Bill is designed to create a lawful basis for forensic excavation, recovery, analysis and identification of human remains at institutional sites where manifestly inappropriate burials have taken place. When the abhorrent situation at Tuam was first discovered, the Government was advised that a full forensic standard excavation, recovery and identification of hu…

I thank the Senators for their proposals. I am not in a position to support these amendments. Replacing "may" with "shall", as proposed by amendments Nos. 5 and 6, would, as Senator Seery Kearney said, remove the discretion of the Government and constrain its ability to make Government decisions on proposals which are brought to Cabinet. It would not be appropriate to compel the Government to make an order. The legislation provides a range of conditions which have to be met in making an order. The intention is to p…

There has been a good deal of debate on this particular provision and it has changed. What we are dealing with in this provision is where there is a burial on private residential land. We are thinking of a situation where perhaps an institution sold off land to an estate and now there is potential intervention on that land. Under the original heads of the Bill I brought forward, the Bill stated that if there are private dwelling houses on private land that is subject to a potential intervention, there will be no in…

I am not in a position to support these amendments. The criteria set out are all-important factors that need to be considered in deciding whether or not to make an order. If an investigation by An Garda Síochána or a coronial inquiry is taking place, an intervention under this Bill could potentially interfere with the investigation or inquiry. This is precisely why the legislation provides that the Government should not make an order in this situation if - and I emphasise if - having consulted with the Garda Commis…

I will first make the general point that the very purpose of this legislation is to stop the burial of the truth and to actually allow for interventions in Tuam and potentially in other sites. That is what we are all seeking to achieve here. Because we are dealing with different sites, I am not in the position to accept these amendments. It is vital to recognise that excavation may not be the desired outcome in every circumstance. I know that Senators here will have engaged with family members who have differing vi…

Obviously, it would be site-specific, unless there was a strong view among relatives that their desire for the site was not to see an investigation, an intervention or an excavation. As we know, what is proposed here is significant in terms of excavation, exhumation and identification. If there was a strong view there, that would be a substantive reason. We have to look at this on a site-by-site basis. However, certainly strong views held by relatives that they do not want to see intervention would, to my mind, con…

I am not in a position to support these amendments. The provisions they seek to remove are necessary to aid the clear interpretation of the criteria that define a manifestly inappropriate burial. Amendment No. 21 seeks to remove the phrase "at the time of such burial" from subsection 8(1)(b) of the legislation. As I explained in the Dáil, it is important that an assessment of burials relates to the time at which such burials took place and the agreed custom, practice and requirements at that time. It is difficult t…

I am not in a position to accept these two amendments because I believe what the Senator seeks is already covered in the Bill in both circumstances. I will set out the reason I believe that is the case. Amendment No. 31 proposes that the circumstances and causes of death are considered in post-recovery analysis and that these are noted in the director's report to the Government. This is provided for in the Bill already. Section 10 outlines the general functions of the director and section 10(b)(iii) specifies the r…

I do not believe that these amendments are necessary. In response to the pre-legislative scrutiny, PLS, report I made provision for final arrangements. The amendments are to do with the final arrangements for the burial of remains following identification and recovery. In response to the PLS process I provided that final arrangements will be made in line with the wishes of family members. Section 57 provides that where a familial match has been made, the director will make arrangements at the request of family memb…

I am pleased to present to the House the Institutional Burials Bill 2022. This is crucial legislation which, if enacted, will allow us to finally afford the children in Tuam the dignified burial that has been denied to them for such a long time. It will provide a lawful basis for a full-scale forensic excavation, recovery and analysis of the children's remains at the site and will enable a DNA-based identification programme to be undertaken to help answer questions affected families may have about their loved ones.…

I thank Senators for their contributions today and I thank many of them for their contributions to this process through the children's committee. I am grateful too for their ongoing engagement with me. Like Senator Boyhan, I visited the site at Tuam last July with the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte. We met Catherine Corless, who showed me the site. We met one or two relatives there and during the course of the day in a nearby hotel, I met different groups of relatives and survivors representing those who were i…