I move: That, pursuant to Standing Order 187, it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Institutional Burials Bill 2022, may be recommitted in respect of certain amendments, that it has power to make amendments to the Bill which are outside the scope of the existing provisions of the Bill, in order to provide for an Oversight Committee to perform an assurance role in respect of historic databases established under the Bill and to make necessary consequential amendments.

I move amendment No. 1: In page 7, line 10, after “manner;” to insert “to provide for post-recovery analysis of recovered human remains;”. I will speak to amendments Nos. 1, 2, 24, 25 and 42 to 44, inclusive, together. Amendments Nos. 2, 24, and 25 are identical to those tabled by Deputies Funchion and Ward on Committee Stage. I agreed to consider changes to the Long Title to explore the relevant part of the director's functions and to consider whether the description of the post-recovery analysis report could make…

I move amendment No. 3: In page 9, line 14, to delete “niece or nephew” and substitute “niece or nephew (whether of the whole blood or the half-blood), grandniece or grandnephew”. Deputies will be aware that I significantly expanded the list of family members who can participate in a DNA identification programme from the list set out in the original general scheme. The published Bill took account of the pre-legislative scrutiny, PLS, recommendations and provided for participation by a child, parent, sibling, half-s…

Yes.

It used to go as far as niece and nephew and stop there. Now it also includes nieces and nephews and clarifies that it applies whether they are of half-blood or full-blood, because the percentages are the same. It also includes grandnieces and grandnephews, a category which was not included before. I take on board what Deputy Canney is saying. There are people who are at the relationship of cousins from a potential child who is buried in the Tuam site, for example, who are deeply concerned and want this ability. I …

I move amendment No. 4: In page 10, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following: “ “Oversight Committee” means the DNA Database System Oversight Committee;”. On Committee Stage I signalled my intention to bring forward new provisions on Report Stage to provide a legislative basis for an oversight committee to perform an assurance role in respect of historic databases established under the Bill. Given the sensitive data to be processed and the risks associated with any potential breach, it is prudent to provide…

I move amendment No. 5: In page 10, line 36, to delete “ordinarily”. This set of amendments is being brought in in response to amendments proposed by Deputy Cairns on Committee Stage that sought to delete the word "ordinarily" from the phrase "ordinarily resident at the institution" in the context of defining principal burial land. I understood the Deputy proposed the amendment because she was concerned that the term "ordinarily" could restrict the people whose remains would be covered by the legislation by implyin…

Amendments similar to amendments Nos. 6, 11 and 45 were discussed on Committee Stage. For the reasons I outlined then, I am not in a position to accept those under discussion. The purpose of this legislation is to provide for the excavation, recovery, analysis, identification and dignified reinterment of human remains buried in a manifestly inappropriate manner. This is the legislative gap that the Bill seeks to address so interventions can take place, initially at Tuam and subsequently at any other site should a s…

This Bill has been introduced to address the legal circumstances we are facing, whereby at one identified site, Tuam, we are unable under the current legislation to intervene. This Bill gives us the opportunity to do so. It places a mandate on us to intervene and to do so to an incredibly high standard in light of the international forensic standards that apply in the context of excavation, recovery, identification and the obligation on the director to attempt to identify the cause of death and inform the relevant …

I move amendment No. 7: In page 12, lines 32 and 33, to delete “A notice or other document that is required to be served on or given to a person under this Act” and substitute the following: “Subject to subsection (3) , a notice or other document that is required or authorised by or under this Act to be served on or given to a person”. On Committee Stage, I signalled my intention to bring forward an amendment to section 4 to provide for the service of notices and other documents on owners and occupiers of land or p…

I move amendment No. 8: In page 13, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “(3) Where a notice or other document is required or authorised by or under this Act to be served on or given to the owner or occupier of land and the name of the owner or of the occupier cannot be ascertained by reasonable inquiry, it may be addressed to “the owner” or “the occupier”, as the case may require, without naming him, her or it.”.

I move amendment No. 10: In page 14, line 28, to delete “ordinarily”.

I move amendment No. 13: In page 14, line 32, to delete “20 meters” and substitute “10 metres”. I recognise that the issue that is being addressed here in terms of how close to a residential house on land an excavation can take place was an issue we debated significantly in the original pre-legislative scrutiny, given a residential house was entirely excluded in the Bill as brought forward. We brought that to 20 m but as concerns were raised by Deputies Funchion and Cairns, we have brought that to 10 m within the c…

I do not think I will be able to assist Deputy Collins as this legislation solely deals with burials relating to institutions such as mother and baby homes and county homes. Perhaps engagement with the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage and his Department would be best. I am unable to help in terms of what this legislation, which is very specific, is about.

I am not in a position to support the amendments put forward by the Deputies for the same reasons I outlined on Committee Stage. It is important to recognise that excavation is not a desired option in every circumstance. I have met families and survivors and I am deeply aware that, for some family members, the graves of their loved ones, the site-----

I was not specifically referring to-----

A number of contributions were made. I have met many families and survivors and, as I said, some of them regard these sites as a grave site and do not wish to see them disturbed at this stage. They would see it as a violation of the sanctity of the remains of their loved ones. In some circumstances, and I acknowledge that on certain sites the preferences are different among survivors, but in some circumstances the preference is a memorial recognising and marking the burial site. This legislation, which as we know i…

I will set out the full section as it is useful for understanding the position here. This is deciding on the issue of manifestly inappropriate burials: The matters referred to in section 7(3)(a)(ii) are whether, in relation to the burials concerned, the human remains— (a) are uncoffined, (b) are buried in such a manner that they would not have complied with the requirements, at the time of such burial, specified in the Burial Grounds Regulations, (c) are buried in a way that would not reasonably be considered to pr…

I am not proposing to accept this amendment because I believe what the Deputy is seeking to achieve is already covered within the provisions of the Bill. Section 8(2)(b) requires the Government to have regard to available evidence including "any reliable and corroborated statement made by a person with knowledge of the circumstances and location of the burials concerned." Amendment No. 19 aims to create an additional requirement that the Government consider any reliable evidence of a third party with knowledge of t…

I am confident that the public interest test will in no way interfere with the proposal to intervene in Tuam.