Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

In making a decision to intervene in any site, the Government must balance the need to undertake the intervention, recognising the manifest inappropriateness of a particular set of burials, with the need to respect the long-standing tradition of the sanctity of burials, which is something we have discussed previously. As we know, the excavation and recovery of human remains is a very significant act. It is complex and that is why we have this very complex piece of legislation. The desire and need for that must be balanced with the manifest inappropriateness of the particular areas. The legislation therefore sets out a number of factors the Government should take into account in determining if an intervention is proportionate. That includes the need to accord dignity to the persons who are buried at the particular site; the need to respect the views of the relatives of the persons buried on the piece of land; public health issues; and alternative options, if any is available.

Safeguarding the public interest is an important concept that needs to be present within legislation. In the context of this legislation, which is significantly impacting on constitutional rights, it is important that the legislation itself sets out a very clear legal basis grounded in the public interest for the impact that it has on constitutional rights. Looking at the factors that are listed here, that will be deleted, it is safe to assume that no one would question the importance of according dignity to the persons buried on the particular site, but public health is an important aspect of intervention and that is one of the reasons why issues around the exhumation of remains are so tightly circumscribed in law already. We cannot disregard the impact on the wider public.

I know we all agree with the need to respect the views of relatives of persons buried on the land. I have met with relatives of families connected to various mother and baby homes and there are strongly differing views in terms of the need to intervene in other sites and in particular on the need to exhume remains on other sites.

Everyone recognises the uniqueness of the Tuam site and the need to intervene there. That is why it is so important that the legislation is not site-specific. It will allow for intervention at Tuam but it also sets out criteria that would be considered in terms of potential interventions at other sites.

These amendments remove the important concept of safeguarding the objectives of public interest and the various factors that underpin it, with the exception of one factor. This would weaken the protection of constitutional rights of which the legislation must take account. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendments.